[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----FLA., ALA., VA., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

July 6


FLORIDA:

The death-penalty news debate


One would think that Beth Cioffoletti did all she needed to do - and then
some - to get the coverage she sought in her newspaper. But on Wednesday I
found her phone message questioning why the paper "did not cover a major
opposition event at the Diocese of Palm Beach against the death penalty
last night."

The paper "had had a lot of coverage of the death penalty all week," Ms.
Cioffoletti noted, "and I made all efforts to make sure that they knew
that this was going to happen last night, during the actual execution" by
lethal injection of child rapist and murderer Mark Schwab.

"The bishop was there," she said. "We had a big, big crowd in front of the
cathedral, publicly witnessing against the execution that was being done
in our name. Fortunately, one of the TV stations covered it, and they did
talk to the bishop. But I just felt that it was very important that in
light of the death penalty that The Palm Beach Post at least have a
picture of this, because it was big. It was a public outcry against the
killing that's being done in our name. And I'm just really kind of upset
that The Palm Beach Post didn't make any effort whatsoever to be there to
cover it, to at least get a picture.

"I know I wrote and sent several, several press releases, the week before,
the very day," she said. "I personally e-mailed the two people who wrote
the articles that were in the Sunday newspaper about the death penalty,
that this was going to take place. And it seems like The Palm Beach Post
just had no interest whatsoever. If you have any insight as to why they
didn't feel this was important, let me know."

It was to the decision-makers in the newsroom that I turned for that
insight. But the question provided another reminder that the paper as an
institution is a reflection of staffers with varied duties and deadlines,
interests, emphases and news judgment. The latter, for example, even can
mean questioning how obligated is the paper to cover events that, unlike
this one, specifically are aimed at getting coverage.

"We have to make tough decisions on a daily basis about what to cover and
how and what not to cover," said Post Managing Editor Bill Rose. "We also
have limited space in the newspaper.

"In this case, we had room to run a couple of photos - one on the front
page and one inside," he said. "We chose to focus on the family of the
victim and protesters celebrating at the scene of the execution, rather
than on protesters gathered in front of a local church. The Catholic
Church's opposition to the death penalty is well-known. We ran a photo of
the 11-year-old victim's family on the front page, and inside, we ran a
photo of protesters outside the prison celebrating the death of the
killer."

"In retrospect," said Mr. Rose, "I wish we had found a way to also run a
photo of the local protesters to let readers know there was a local
reaction to big news happening elsewhere." The benefits of such
second-guessing help show why, regardless of whether they agree with
readers, it's almost always a good thing when the paper's staff members
hear from readers.

(source: Editorial, Palm Beach Post)

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

Florida death penalty opponent lists reasons


Whenever Florida executes a death row inmate, a group of people stand
outside Florida State Prison in protest. Among the protesters: members of
Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, a volunteer group led by
Clearwater resident Mark Elliott. "I've never been a fan of unnecessary
killing," says Elliott, who became involved with the group about 5 years
ago and became its executive director two years ago. Elliott works as a
property manager, but says he spends about 40 hours a week doing work for
the group, which has about 2,000 subscribers to its newsletter. The Times
asked Elliott why he opposes the death penalty. His responses:

 "It's unnecessary. In Florida, we have the alternative of life in prison
without the possibility of parole. This amounts to a death sentence that
is carried out immediately. There is no wait for justice."

 "The risk of executing the innocent. Florida has exonerated at least 22
people off death row."

 "It diverts millions of dollars from helping victims' families and law
enforcement. It costs Florida $50-million a year to have the death penalty
on the books."

 "It is racist. In the entire history of our state, there has never been a
white person executed for the killing of an African-American. That
actually goes back to 1786."

 "No government on earth should decide who lives and who dies. According
to Amnesty International, China, Iran, Pakistan, the Sudan, Iraq and the
United States account for almost all the world's executions."

 For more information on Elliott's group, visit fadp.org.

(source: St. Petersburg Times)






ALABAMA:

Alabama and the death penalty


This week, a United Nations report described Alabama's use of the death
penalty as being one of the worst examples in the United States. It
surmised that Alabama may have already executed innocent people.

Below are excerpts from the U.N. report, which was produced by Professor
Philip Alston of the United Nations Human Rights Council Special
rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

 In Alabama, the situation remains highly problematic. Government
officials seem strikingly indifferent to the risk of executing innocent
people and have a range of standard responses, most of which are
characterized by a refusal to engage with the facts. The reality is that
the system is simply not designed to turn up cases of innocence, however
compelling they might be. It is entirely possible that Alabama has already
executed innocent people, but officials would rather deny than confront
flaws in the criminal justice system.

 Alabama's systematic rejection of concerns that basic international
standards are being violated sits oddly alongside the government's
determined and successful bid to attract foreign investment from the
European Union in particular. Indeed, Alabama's largest export market in
2007 was Germany. It would thus be appropriate for Alabama to engage in a
dialogue on due process concerns in its death penalty with the
international community.

 The problem of politicizing death sentences is illustrated by Alabama's
law permitting judges to override the considered opinion of the jury in
sentencing. Even if a jury unanimously decides to sentence a defendant to
life in prison, the judge can instead impose a death sentence.

When judges override jury verdicts, it is nearly always to increase the
sentence to death rather than to decrease it to life, and a significant
proportion of those on death row would not be there if jury verdicts were
respected.

Given the key role of the jury in American justice, it is difficult to
justify giving officials who will be held to account for their stance on
the death penalty every 4 years the power to substitute their own
individual opinions for those of the 12-member jury.

Given concerns about possible innocence and the irreversible nature of the
death penalty, Alabama should relieve judges of this invidious role by
repealing the law permitting judicial override. Instead, juries should be
permitted to play their historical role of protecting individual rights.

(source: Editorial, Anniston Star)






VERMONT----re: federal death penalty

Vt. prosecutors may seek death penalty in abduction


It's been more than 50 years since Vermont sentenced anyone to death and
54 years since its last execution, but the man charged with abducting
12-year-old Brooke Bennett could become the 2nd Vermonter to end up on
federal death row in recent years.

Even though police haven't released a cause of death for Brooke or even
said she was murdered, federal prosecutors have said they might seek the
death penalty against Michael Jacques, 42, of Randolph, the man charged
with kidnapping her.

Vermont Law School professor Michael Mello, an expert on the death
penalty, said it could be the first time federal prosecutors seek the
death penalty using changes to federal law included in the Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

"This is a big deal," Mello said. "What the Adam Walsh amendment was
intended to do, in effect, is to make virtually any kidnapping with death
resulting a federal capital offense."

Federal prosecutors charge that Jacques, Brooke's uncle, used fictitious
e-mail identities to help orchestrate the June 25 abduction of the girl.
After dropping Brooke off at a Randolph convenience store, Jacques and a
14-year-old witness identified as Juvenile 1 picked her up again and took
Brooke back to Jacques' home.

Juvenile 1 told police she felt Brooke was going to be initiated into a
"program for sex." The girl said the last time she saw Brooke, Brooke was
going upstairs with Jacques. Brooke's body was found July 2 buried in a
shallow grave about a mile from Jacques' home.

Prosecutors have suggested no motive for the alleged kidnapping. Jacques
has not yet appeared in federal court to enter a plea in the case.

State prosecutors have turned the case over to the US attorney's office.
The investigation into Brooke's death isn't complete, and it will be
months before a decision is made on whether to seek the death penalty
against Jacques.

Vermont hasn't executed a prisoner since 1954 and the last death sentence
came in 1957, although the sentence was commuted and the inmate later
released.

In effect, the Legislature outlawed the death penalty in 1965 although it
technically remained a part of state law until 1987. But the state's death
penalty law was invalidated in 1972 by the US Supreme Court decision that
commuted all death sentences in the country at that time.

The last time the Vermont Legislature gave the death penalty serious
consideration was in 1987, said state Senator Vince Illuzzi, a Republican
from Essex-Orleans who introduced the legislation. Instead, the
Legislature enacted the aggravated murder law, which carries with it a
mandatory sentence of life without parole.

Illuzzi said he felt the state's lack of a death penalty made Vermont's US
attorney more likely to get involved in cases such as Brooke's death.

"It fills what some might consider to be a void in the law," Illuzzi said.

In 2 cases over the last decade, the office of Vermont's US attorney has
prosecuted death penalty cases.

In the 1st case, from 1998, an Ohio man faced the death penalty for
sending a bomb via a delivery service that killed a Fair Haven teenager.
But Chris Dean, 45, agreed to serve a sentence of life without parole in
exchange for the government's dropping the death sentence.

In 2005, a jury in federal court in Burlington sentenced Donald Fell to
death for the 2000 carjacking murder of Terry King, 53, of North
Clarendon, who was kidnapped when she arrived at a Rutland supermarket
early one morning in November 2000 and then beaten to death in New York
state.

In the King case, Vermont's US attorney didn't want to seek the death
penalty but was ordered to do so by then-US Attorney General John
Ashcroft.

Just last week, while the search for Brooke was intensifying, the 2d US
Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld Fell's death sentence. Fell,
28, is now housed on death row in Terre Haute, Ind.

In 2006, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Adam Walsh Act.
It is named for 6-year-old boy who was abducted from a Florida shopping
mall in 1981 and later died.

(source: Associated Press)






CALIFORNIA:

A dysfunctional death penalty serves no one----Study shows that
California's capital cases are plagued by problems and errors


Proponents and opponents of the death penalty should all be able to agree
with the chief finding of the Commission on the Fair Administration of
Justice: As it is administered in California, the death penalty is
dysfunctional. It is an expensive and frustrating judicial exercise that
satisfies no one, not defendants, victims' families, taxpayers nor the
justice system itself.

Only 13 people in California have been executed since the death penalty
was reinstated in 1977. With 673 condemned prisoners awaiting execution,
California has the largest death row of any state in the country, but
convicts are much more likely to die while awaiting appeals than to be
executed.

For the very few who are put to death, it takes on average 17.2 years to
carry out an execution after a death penalty has been pronounced, the
longest wait of any death penalty state in the nation. Those condemned
wrongfully can wait more than a decade to have their cases reviewed. Since
1978, the federal courts have ordered new trials in 38 of 54 death penalty
appeals in California, an unacceptable 70 % error rate.

To reduce errors and speed death penalty appeals, the commission
unanimously recommends a list of fixes mainly to improve the quality and
increase the number of lawyers handling death penalty appeals. It also
calls upon the state to increase reimbursement to counties for the high
cost of homicide trials, including the expense of ensuring that
defendants, most of whom are indigent, have competent representation.

The cost of administering a dysfunctional death penalty is enormous  $137
million annually. The fixes recommended will cost an additional $95
million, or $232 million a year in total.

But fixing the current system is not the only choice. Commissioners also
examined 2 intriguing alternatives to California's death penalty:

 Reduce the number of "special circumstances" that make criminals eligible
for the death penalty. There are currently 21, a list so broad that it
makes 87 % of all convicted 1st-degree murderers in this state eligible
for execution. One special circumstance, the felony murder rule, makes not
just the burglar who killed his victim eligible for death, but also the
accomplice who drove the get-away car and killed no one.

Cutting the number of special circumstances to five, as a national blue
ribbon panel of judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers has recommended,
would reserve execution for the worst of the worst. It would also
eliminate much of the troubling geographical variation of death penalty
cases and save $100 million annually.

 Alternately, replace the death penalty with life in prison without the
possibility of parole. As the report states, "Although the risks of
wrongful convictions (would) remain, there would be no wrongful
executions" with such a change. Replacing executions with a hard life
sentence would also save the state hundreds of millions of dollars,
including construction of a new death row at San Quentin.

Ending the death penalty is a moral decision, and any attempt to eliminate
it would have to be decided by voters. Yet the commission has given
lawmakers and the public essential information to consider options. The
status quo is not a responsible option. Let the debate begin.

(source: Editorial, Sacramento Bee)

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

Death penalty and race: Scales of justice may weigh heavily against
blacks----Statistics indicate sentence meted out highly selectively.


For Bill Babbitt, a black man, the question comes down to this: Why did
Sacramento County condemn his brother Manny to death for killing a white
woman but sentence his cousin Butchie's white killer to a year in jail?

"I'm looking at all these murders that have occurred, hundreds, and I'm
thinking, how did Manny's name come up?" says Babbitt, who witnessed his
brother's execution by lethal injection in 1999.

How did Manuel Babbitt become one of the 827 first-degree murderers chosen
for California's ultimate penalty? The same question is being asked, in
effect, by a state commission that tried to learn whether race or other
inappropriate factors have been determining who gets the death penalty and
who does not.

After failing to obtain most of the relevant data, the California
Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, appointed by the state
Senate and chaired by former California Attorney General John Van de Kamp,
last week called for legislation requiring prosecutors to collect and
report all information on their decisions whether to seek the death
penalty. The commission also wants courts and defense lawyers, as well as
prosecutors, to collect and report information showing whether race
affects the outcome of murder prosecutions.

The commission calculated that 87 % of 1st-degree murders in California
could be prosecuted as death-penalty cases. But the great majority are
not. The commission was unable to find out what makes the difference
partly because most county district attorneys refused to cooperate with
Pepperdine University law school researchers employed to construct and
conduct a survey. District attorneys in each county have their own
standards and procedures for evaluating murder cases. But even those
internal rules are kept secret in most counties, including Sacramento.

Some information is available, however, from other sources. It reveals
disturbing patterns. Records show administration of the death penalty is
highly selective  5.6 % of about 12,000 1st-degree murderers now in prison
are sentenced to death.

Since capital punishment was reinstated in California in 1977, death
sentences against black defendants, but not Latinos, have been
disproportionately enormous by almost every measure: population, homicide
rates, victim data and the sentencing patterns of other states.

California's 5-to-1 ratio of blacks on death row to blacks in the state
population, measured in percentages, is much higher than the ratios in
Texas, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina. The national average is 3 to
1.

Most of the raw data come from published and unpublished reports of
statisticians in the state Department of Justice, the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the California Appellate Project,
which provides technical support to defense lawyers appointed by the state
Supreme Court in capital appeals. The project tries to collect ethnic data
matching death row inmates and victims, and does its best to verify the
information.

The problem with the high death penalty rate for blacks isn't the number
arrested for homicide. 24 % of the people arrested for homicide are black,
but blacks make up 36 % of the current death row population. Latinos are
46 % of homicide arrestees but 20 % of death row inmates.

One factor causing this imbalance seems to be a large number of cases in
which blacks have been sentenced to death for killing white victims.
Statewide, where the victim's race is known, nearly half of all death
sentences against black defendants have involved the killing of at least
one white victim. In death sentences against all ethnic groups, 59 % have
involved a white victim. Yet whites are only about 22 % of homicide
victims.

The numbers for Sacramento County are similar to the state figures in some
respects but not others. The defendant was black in 1 of every 3 death
sentences handed down in Sacramento County. A white victim was involved in
4 out of 5 death sentences against blacks. The county's black population
is about one in 10.

(source: Sacramento Bee)

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

Study shows it is time to do away with death penalty


THE NEWLY released report by the California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice can lead the staunchest supporters of capital
punishment to only one conclusion: In its current form, the California
death penalty policy does not work.

This should prompt death-penalty advocates to then ask: How much am I
willing to pay to shore up the current deficiencies?

According to the report, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978,
California has created a costly and dysfunctional system that operates at
such a sluggish pace that it has essentially morphed into a more expensive
life sentence.

Since its reinstatement, California has executed 13 individuals while 670
current sit on death row. Conservative estimates indicated much more than
$100 million in tax money is spent annually on this ineffectual policy.

The report also takes into account the emotional levy placed on families
of murder victims who are deluded into believing that justice will be
delivered within their lifetimes.

This may be the most insidious aspect of the death-penalty policy as
victims' families are used as political pawns while prosecutors seek a
justice that in all likelihood will not come to fruition.

The strain these cases place on the justice system in terms of the time
and attention taken away from the court's other business is also heavy. If
the political will exists to reduce the average lapse of time from
sentence to execution to the national average of 12 years, the report
estimates California would be required to allocate nearly twice what it
currently spends.

A majority of Californians has long supported the death penalty. Support
for capital punishment is a prerequisite for anyone harboring visions of
one day becoming the state's governor.

I fully understand the visceral and emotional reaction for wanting the
death penalty.

If I were to lose a loved one, that might well be my initial desire. But
can visceral and emotional reactions serve as the basis for a public
policy, especially one that does not work?

The report leaves Californians with 3 choices: Make the necessary reforms,
eliminate the death penalty or maintain the status quo.

Let's assume momentarily that the status quo and eliminating the death
penalty are off the table  that leaves implementing the recommendations of
the commission.

Given the state's current fiscal crisis, is there the political will to
double the existing budget to bring the lapse time between sentencing and
execution within the national average?

Are death-penalty advocates ready to take to the streets to demand more
money be given to the attorney general's office? Who is going to lobby for
more funds to be directed for DNA testing? Are Californians willing to
reduce the number of crimes that are death-penalty eligible  the most in
the country  to reduce the escalating backlog?

Californians must confront how bad they want to be in the execution
business.

Is having a death penalty worth more than investing in the state's social
and economic infrastructure?

Let's be honest: There is not the corresponding will to provide the
financial resources with the political rhetoric that advocates capital
punishment. But without such will how can California sustain the policy?

The other option would be to maintain the current policy and ignore the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by doing away with certain
appeals, which would no doubt greatly speed the process.

Public support for the death penalty hangs more on emotion and red
herrings than actual data. Life without parole does not mean that
convicted murderers who are currently death-penalty eligible will somehow
be released.

As the report recommends, the time has come to address death-penalty
reform in a frank and honest way. To function effectively, the death
penalty must be carried out with reasonable dispatch, but at the same time
in a manner that assures fairness, accuracy and nondiscrimination.

The simple, most cost-effective measure, however, would be to eliminate
the death penalty. It's not as if the majority on death row are not
already dying of natural causes as opposed to lethal injection.

(source: Inside Bay Area)

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

Death penalty perpetuates vicious cycle of violence


As a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, I once argued to put a
young man to death. But I won't do it again.

In October 2002, Demarcus Ralls and his seven co-defendants embarked on a
three-month journey of terror. By the time all 8defendants were arrested
in early 2003, 7people had been killed, a dozen people shot, and more than
30 had been robbed and assaulted.

When my boss asked me whether I would take what would be a career-making
case and argue for Ralls' execution, it took me less than a minute to
decide that I would proudly accept the challenge.

It was the 1st time in my life I had been asked to seriously think about
the death penalty.

While interviewing jurors, I eventually got to the only question that
really mattered: "Can you return a verdict that would one day require the
state of California to execute a human being?"

I believe many of the prospective jurors had listened to news reports
about gruesome killings and assumed the killers should be put to death.
But once it was apparent that they might play more than a spectator's role
- that they would be the ones to decide whether this young man should live
or die - they grew much more hesitant. So did I.

The trial brought out more than just grizzly details about the killings.
Ralls' violent and abusive childhood emerged. What crystallized for me
during the trial was something I had slowly been realizing over my career
as a prosecutor: I was witnessing a cycle of violence.

The violence Ralls had inflicted closely resembled the violence he had
experienced as a child. Ralls was born while his mother was in jail. His
role model was his older brother, one of the cruelest killers I had ever
heard about.

The jury found Ralls guilty. It came time for me to stand up and make my
argument for death. But this case that once seemed so straightforward now
seemed very complex. I was no longer certain what would be accomplished by
executing Demarcus Ralls.

The jury condemned Ralls to permanent imprisonment. Though I had lost, I
knew justice had been served.

I realized I could no longer argue for the death of another human being no
matter what atrocious things he or she may have done. I now understand
that the death penalty is an ineffective, cruel and simplistic response to
the complex problem of violent crime.

Our limited resources could be better spent on programs that focus on
stopping violence before it starts, such as preventing child abuse and
drug addiction - programs that will prevent another child from becoming
the next Demarcus Ralls.

Last week, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of
Justice, before which I testified, released the first exhaustive review of
California's death penalty system. The report highlights the many
expensive reforms needed for the state's death penalty and encourages
Californians to consider whether it's really worth the price.

I hope more will realize, as I have, that the state will be a better and
safer place when we replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.

(source: Darryl Stallworth, Mercury News)

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

What will it Take to Reform California's Death Penalty?


The newly released report by the California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice can lead the staunchest supporters of capital
punishment with only one conclusion: In its current form, the California
death penalty policy does not work!

This should prompt death penalty advocates to then ask: How much am I
willing to pay to shore up the current deficiencies?

According to the report, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978,
California has created a costly and dysfunctional system that operates at
such a sluggish pace that it has essentially morphed into a more expensive
life sentence.

Since its reinstatement, California has executed 13 individuals while 670
currently sit on death row. Conservative estimates indicated well over
$100 million dollars of tax money is spent annually on this ineffectual
policy.

The report also took into account the emotional levy placed on families of
murder victims who are deluded into believing that justice will be
delivered within their lifetimes. This may be the most insidious aspect of
the death penalty policy as victim's families are used as political pawns
while prosecutors seek a justice that in all likelihood will not come to
fruition.

The strain these cases place on the justice system, in terms of the time
and attention taken away from the court's other business is also heavy. If
the political will exist to reduce the average lapse of time from sentence
to execution down to the national average of 12 years, the report
estimates California would be required to allocate nearly twice what it
currently spends.

The death penalty has long been supported by a majority of Californians.
Support for capital punishment is a perquisite for anyone harboring
visions of one day becoming the state's governor.

I fully understand the visceral and emotional reaction for wanting the
death penalty. If I were to lose a loved one that might very well be my
initial desire, but can visceral and emotional reactions serve as the
basis for a public policy, especially one that does not work?

The report leaves Californians with three choices: Make the necessary
reforms, eliminate the death penalty, or maintain the status quo.

Let's assume momentarily that the status quo and eliminating the death
penalty are off the table--that leaves implementing the recommendations of
the commission. Given the state's current fiscal crisis is there the
political will to double the existing budget in order to bring the lapse
time between sentencing and execution within the national average?

Are death penalty advocates ready to take to the streets to demand more
money be given to the Attorney General's office? Who is going to lobby for
more funds to be directed for DNA testing? Are Californians willing to
reduce the number of crimes that are death penalty eligible--the most in
the country--in order to reduce the escalating backlog?

Californians must confront how badly they want to be in the execution
business. Is having a death penalty worth more than investing in the
state's social and economic infrastructure?

Let's be honest, there is not the corresponding will to provide the
financial resources with the political rhetoric that advocates capitol
punishment. But without such will how can California maintain the policy?

The other option would be to maintain the current policy and ignore the
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by doing away with certain
appeals, which would no doubt greatly speed up the process.

Public support for the death penalty hangs more on emotion and red
herrings than actual data. Life without parole does not mean that
convicted murderers who are currently death penalty eligible will somehow
be released.

As the report recommends, the time has come to address death penalty
reform in a frank and honest way. To function effectively, the death
penalty must be carried out with reasonable dispatch, but at the same time
in a manner that assures fairness, accuracy and non-discrimination.

The simple, most cost effective measure, however, would be to eliminate
the death penalty; its not as if the majority on death row are not already
dying of natural causes as opposed to lethal injection.

(source: Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist;
Huffington Post)