[Deathpenalty] [POSSIBLE SPAM] death penalty news----N.C., PENN., ARK., ORE., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 8



NORTH CAROLINA:

NC murder rate falls while death penalty sleeps


The state Supreme Court issued an opinion today on a rather complex and obscure 
matter related to the process used in the adoption of the state’s execution 
“protocol.” The decision serves to highlight once again the fact that the death 
penalty has not been carried out in the state in more than 5 years.

This got me thinking: If death penalty proponents like state Rep. Paul Stam are 
right, this should have produced a spike in crime and killings given the 
supposed deterrent effect of executions.

Then I looked at the statistics. This is what I found — someone correct me if 
I’m looking at the wrong numbers or crunching them incorrectly:

In 2005 — the year before the de facto state moratorium on the death penalty 
went into effect – there were 575 murders in a state of 8.685 million people. 
In 2010 — the last full year for which we have statistics — there were 468 
murders in a state of 9.535 million people. According to my math that’s a per 
capita drop of more than 25% — from a rate of roughly 0.0000662 to 0.0000491.

Rather than encouraging murder, it would appear that the absence of the death 
penalty has, if anything, reduced the cycle of violence in our state. That 
sounds like a good pattern to nurture.

(source: Rob Schofield, The Porgressive Pulse)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Case spotlights lawyers' role in Pa. death penalty


A legal battle currently being waged before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court—with 
the chief justice as a central figure—could dramatically transform how death 
penalty appeals are handled in a state with 208 people on death row but only 3 
executions over the past 5 decades.

The issue, which has arisen from the case of a man convicted of killing 4 
people in the mid-1990s, is being pushed by Chief Justice Ronald Castille, who 
has leveled charges of improper tactics and unethical lawyering against the 
Defender Association of Philadelphia's capital case appeals unit.

Last week, a majority of the divided high court ordered the federally funded 
association to list all of the death row defendants it represents, explain its 
authority to work in state courts and provide other information.

The latest court order follows a blistering 34-page opinion that Castille wrote 
in April. The chief justice, joined by 2 others, said much of the high court's 
time was being consumed by what he called "strategic diversions" in an effort 
by the lawyers to undermine the death penalty, largely through numerous lengthy 
filings that cause delays.

"When faux outrage about the delays their overall strategy necessarily induces 
serves their purpose, they forward that claim, accusing Pennsylvania courts of 
incompetence or laziness, their argument unencumbered by concerns for accuracy, 
honesty and candor," Castille wrote.

"This is what federal judicial financing of the (association's) state court 
litigation strategy has wrought in Pennsylvania," he said. "When the families 
of murder victims and other concerned citizens ask why there is no effective 
death penalty in Pennsylvania, the dirty secret answer is: ask the federal 
court."

Neither Castille nor the Defender Association would comment, and the filing is 
due later this month, but Leigh Skipper, the chief federal public defender in 
Philadelphia, told the Philadelphia Inquirer in May that their lawyers cannot 
choose which defendant should get their best efforts.

"We take the cases as we find them," he told the paper. "We can't differentiate 
between 'good murderers' and 'bad murderers.' A lawyer has an ethical 
obligation."

Cumberland County District Attorney Dave Freed said prosecutors around the 
state feel the death penalty case lawyers from the Defender Association do not 
play by the rules.

"A fair and level playing field is what we're looking for," Freed said. "When 
the highest court in the commonwealth has recognized these issues, it's pretty 
fair to say it's a problem."

The defendant in the case currently at issue is Mark Newton Spotz, 40, whose 
1995 killing spree began with the death of his brother in Clearfield County and 
continued with the slayings of three older women in Cumberland, York and 
Schuylkill counties.

In April, the Supreme Court upheld his Cumberland County murder conviction in 
the shooting death of Betty Amstutz, and Castille wrote separately to express 
his criticism of the role the Defender Association's death penalty appeals unit 
plays in state court proceedings.

Justice Seamus McCaffery supported the chief justice's opinion, and Justice 
Joan Orie Melvin agreed to the concluding section in which Castille called for 
new limits on the size of defense filings and an overall review of procedures.

Justice Thomas Saylor said he would refer the matter to the court's lawyer 
disciplinary board.

Spotz's lawyers sought reargument and Castille's removal from the case in May, 
after which the Cumberland County district attorney's office asked the high 
court for legal sanctions, saying the defense tactics were precisely the sort 
of abuse that Castille had raised.

There were subsequent filings and counterfilings, culminating on Oct. 3 with 
the Supreme Court's order directing Leigh Skipper, who heads up the office, to 
respond within 10 days. Baer dissented, joined by Todd, saying the order could 
be construed as a discovery demand placed on a litigant by a court, and that 
the motions the defense filed should simply have been denied or allowed to have 
been withdrawn.

The reasons for Pennsylvania's de facto death penalty moratorium have long been 
debated.

Back in January, then-Gov. Ed Rendell chose one of his final news conferences 
while in office to say the death penalty should be revamped or simply replaced 
with a sentence of life without parole. He noted that he and his 5 predecessors 
had approved 386 death warrants. Gov. Tom Corbett, his successor, has signed 8 
more this year.

Rendell blamed "a system of endless appeals," but defense lawyers point to the 
state's underfunding of criminal defense, saying that results in flawed trials 
that the appellate courts can't ignore. As evidence of that, they point to 
death penalty cases that have been overturned on appeal, including by the state 
Supreme Court.

The Inquirer said in May that the association's death penalty team has a $14 
million annual budget, most of it from the federal government. Castille said he 
was uncertain about their funding, but that the policy of federal money going 
toward state-level murder appeals "has been determined and implemented without 
the consultation and involvement of this court, or of any commonwealth 
authority."

Late last month, the high court ordered that a Philadelphia senior judge look 
into whether the legal fees the city pays for lawyers in capital cases are "so 
inadequate that it can be presumed that counsel is constitutionally 
ineffective" on a global scale, or if that analysis is better done on a 
case-by-case basis.

Freed said he has no problem with death penalty cases getting extra levels of 
judicial review, as long as the court's rules are followed.

"There's a feeling in the anti-death-penalty crowd, 'We're going to do whatever 
it takes, because whatever is right and just is on our side,'" Freed said. 
"Well, we've got the law of Pennsylvania on our side, and we're going to do 
what's right every time."

———

Online: Order: 
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/576cappco.pdf

Dissent: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/576capds.pdf

(source: Associated Press)






ARKANSAS:

Federal appeals court upholds ruling that allows Ark. prison system to set 
execution protocols


A federal appeals court has turned down appeals by eight Arkansas death row 
inmates who claim that the state's rules and procedures for executions are 
unconstitutional.

Marcel Wayne Williams filed 1 lawsuit and 7 other condemned inmates filed a 
similar court action. A 3-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
in St. Louis addressed both lawsuits in its Friday ruling, saying the inmates 
raised only speculative concerns.

A related lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court is under appeal by the state. 
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports (http://bit.ly/9eghoo ) that Circuit 
Judge Tim Fox ruled in August that a portion of a law the Legislature passed in 
2009 governing executions is unconstitutional.

Fox found that the law improperly gave the Department of Correction too much 
authority in choosing drugs to be used in lethal injections.

The state has no scheduled executions.

The other inmates suing are Jack Harold Jones, Don William Davis, Alvin Bernal 
Jackson, Stacey Eugene Johnson, Kenneth Dewayne Williams, Jason Farrell McGehee 
and Bruce Earl Ward.

U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes dismissed the lawsuits in 2010, after finding 
that the inmates raised only speculation that the Correction Department would 
change execution procedures without notice. The inmates also argued that giving 
the department the power to set execution procedures instead of the Legislature 
induced anxiety as they worried that the department could change procedures.

But the appeals court agreed with Holmes, writing that a "conceivable" risk 
does not rise to the level of a "significant risk" of increased punishment.

(source: Associated Press)




OREGON:

'I'm ready,' Oregon death row inmate Gary Haugen tells judge; may face 
execution Dec. 6


This time, Gary Haugen made no long speeches about how the legal system is 
broken and its money misspent. No talk about dying with dignity or any detailed 
explanation about why the 49-year-old twice-convicted killer would rather end 
his life than spend his days on Oregon's death row.

Instead, Haugen, his graying hair pulled back in a ponytail, said he would keep 
his comments to a minimum.

"I can't go on," he said in a low, calm voice. "This is going to be one time 
where I just don't do a lot of talking, because I'm ready, your honor. Because 
I'm ready."

Shortly after, Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond found Haugen legally 
sane to be put to death, leaving little left to stop Oregon from carrying out 
its first execution in 14 years.

In Friday's hearing, the judge asked Haugen a series of questions to determine 
his understanding of legal options and the reasons for his execution. Guimond 
told Haugen that he anticipates signing the inmate's death warrant, which the 
state is expected to file in the coming weeks. Prosecutors said the state wants 
a tentative date of Dec. 6 to administer the lethal injection.

This is the 2nd time Haugen has been on the path to execution. He has waived 
his appeals. In May, Guimond found Haugen competent and set an Aug. 16 
execution date.

The Oregonian’s continuing coverage of Gary Haugen, an Oregon death row 
prisoner, who wants to initiate the execution process.But Haugen's attorneys at 
the time argued that a Portland neuropsychologist had examined Haugen and found 
him delusional. Over Haugen's objections, they asked the Oregon Supreme Court 
to intervene.

The justices ruled in July that Haugen needed to undergo a full evaluation and 
ordered Guimond to cancel the execution.

A different Portland psychologist, Richard Hulteng, examined Haugen and 
concluded that he was mentally competent.

Haugen's current attorney, Gregory Scholl, told the judge that he and Haugen's 
other two attorneys have come to that same conclusion based on their own 
interactions, Hulteng's evaluation, other psychological assessments, as well as 
discussions with other professionals.

"Mr. Haugen is competent and his waiver is valid," Scholl said.

Despite his personal opposition to the death penalty, Scholl said he and his 
colleagues, Steve Gorham and Kathleen Dunn, are committed to fulfilling their 
professional responsibility to advise and consult with their client on his 
objectives.

"It is the defense's position that he deserves to have an advocate who will 
represent him and his interests, regardless of who disagrees with those 
interests or even what his advocates might personally believe," Scholl said.

Haugen praised his current attorneys for setting aside their personal beliefs 
and being brave enough to face "the sewing circle" of death penalty opponents.

His execution would be Oregon's first in 14 years. Harry Charles Moore, who 
similarly had waived his appeals, was put to death in 1997.

"They're going to pay the price for that, and they're willing to do that not 
just to protect my rights but (those of) every indigent defendant on the row's 
right ... to have a voice," he said.

He also fired some parting shots at his previous attorneys, W. Keith Goody and 
Andy Simrin, saying they were unethical and unprofessional in ignoring his 
desires and painting him as mentally incompetent.

"Wherever you are," he called out to them, "how do you like those apples? 
Because you're sitting where you're sitting and this is what it is."

He ended his comments by cursing two other lawyers who also tried to halt the 
process.

Haugen has said he does not believe he deserves the death penalty for the 2003 
killing of fellow inmate David Polin. But he is going through with the 
execution in part to protest the legal system as well as to afford himself the 
chance to die "with dignity," he has said in interviews.

Haugen has been in prison since he was 19, when he first arrived at the Oregon 
State Penitentiary to serve a life sentence with the possibility of parole for 
the 1981 beating death of Mary Archer of Portland, his ex-girlfriend's mother.

Ard Pratt, Archer's first husband, attended the hearing, saying he was glad the 
case is proceeding. "I will hold my breath until it happens," he said.

Opponents said they are still looking at options to stop the execution, 
including asking Gov. John Kitzhaber to step in. Although Kitzhaber has said in 
the past that he is opposed to the death penalty, he allowed the last two 
executions -- which occurred during his previous administration -- to go 
ahead.

"It's really not about what Mr. Haugen wants," said Tom O'Connor, a spokesman 
for Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. "It's about what Oregon 
wants as a state and its own sense of humanity and identity ... Are we a state 
that cheers when somebody is executed or are we a state that thinks this is not 
really what we stand for?"

(source: The Oregonian)

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

Haugen's execution date set----Judge rules inmate is mentally competent to drop 
his appeals, and tentatively sets date for lethal injection in December


A Marion County judge on Friday cleared the way for the execution of Oregon 
death row inmate Gary Haugen, deeming him mentally competent to drop his 
appeals and legally sane to be put to death.

Lethal-injection execution of the 49-year-old twice-convicted murderer 
tentatively is scheduled for 7 p.m. Dec. 6 at the Oregon State Penitentiary in 
Salem.

If carried through, the execution will be the state's first in 14 years.

Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond said he intends to sign Haugen's death warrant 
soon, officially authorizing the execution.

The Salem prison has been preparing for possible execution duty for a number of 
months. Corrections officials say it will be handled in solemn, professional 
fashion by an all-volunteer team of prison employees.

If all goes as planned, Haugen will be swiftly killed by a combination of 3 
drugs: pentobarbital (induces unconsciousness), pancuronium bromide (halts 
breathing) and potassium chloride (stops heart).

In the last moments, an executioner, or executioners, will push a series of 
plungers, sending the fatal drugs through tubes connecting to IV catheters in 
Haugen's arm.

The state Corrections Department purchased supplies of the lethal drugs from 
Cardinal Health, an Ohio-based wholesale drug supplier.

Oregon's execution machinery hasn't been used since Salem double killer Harry 
Moore was put to death shortly after midnight on May 16, 1997.

Like Haugen, Moore waived his legal appeals and asked to be executed.

In court Friday, Haugen reaffirmed his often-stated desire to proceed with his 
execution.

"I can't go on," he said. "This is going to be one time where I just don't do a 
lot of talking, because I'm ready, your honor; because I'm ready."

During Friday's hearing, Haugen answered a series of questions posed by Guimond 
as part of the process required by law to determine whether he is mentally 
competent to drop his appeals.

In addition to the formal question-and-answer session, Guimond also relied on 
the recent findings of a clinical psychologist, Richard Hulteng, who evaluated 
Haugen and found him fit to make reasoned legal decisions.

Haugen's mental condition previously was called into question by his former 
attorneys, Andy Simrin and Keith Goody.

They argued in a letter to the Oregon Supreme Court that Haugen was delusional 
and mentally incompetent, prompting the high court to order Guimond to cancel a 
previous Aug. 16 execution date and conduct further inquiries into the inmate's 
competency.

On Friday, Haugen blasted Simrin and Goody, saying they pursued their own 
anti-death penalty agenda rather than advocating for his objectives. "Wherever 
you are," he said, "how do you like those apples? Because you're sitting where 
you're sitting and this is what it is."

Haugen and another inmate, Jason Brumwell, landed on death row in 2007, when 
both were convicted of killing a 3rd inmate at the state penitentiary.

At their joint trial, Haugen and Brumwell were convicted of aggravated murder 
for the 2003 slaying of David Polin, who died from a crushed skull and 84 stab 
wounds.

Prosecutors maintained that Haugen and Brumwell killed Polin because they 
mistakenly believed he snitched to prison officials about their use of drugs.

At the time of Polin's murder, Haugen was in prison for the 1981 murder of Mary 
Archer of Portland, his ex-girlfriend's mother.

(source: Statesman Journal)






USA:

Death Penalty Needs Change: While Proper Punishment, Needs to Be Used Correctly


If a person can’t be proved innocent, are they guilty? If you can’t prove that 
you are innocent, can it immediately be assumed that you are the wrongdoer?

Capital punishment is a major part of American society, and is what the 
American justice system is based on. I think there have been a number of court 
cases where people have been convicted for a crime and pun­ished when there 
isn’t a conclusive amount of evidence.

A person has to be properly represented and all evidence has to be properly 
taken into con­sideration. This is stressed especially in situations where a 
person’s life is being laid on the line. If a person is convicted of a crime 
and is later found to be innocent, you have to stop and raise an eyebrow at how 
court systems are going about allowing cases to be closed without proper 
presentation of all evidence.

If a group of individuals are going to come together as a whole and decide 
whether or not someone deserves to live, you have to have the full story, or at 
least as much as humanly possible to the full extent of everyone’s 
capabilities.

Troy Davis was executed on Sept. 21 for the alleged murder of police officer 
Mark MacPhail in Savannah. The U.S. District Court in my opinion failed to 
follow procedure in attempts to get the full extent of the truth in order to 
prosecute Davis as fairly as possible.

There were a lot of situations where major turns in the case were revealed to 
be hearsay or where a witness to the crime would later change their 
recollection of what happened in their affidavits. Some of the changes even 
suggested someone other than Davis actually committed the murder.

Even if there is the smallest possibility that a person did not commit a 
murder, they shouldn’t be put to death. The Troy Davis Case is the perfect 
example of how the steps involved in capital punishment aren’t being followed 
correctly, and in turn the punishment is being abused.

Capital punishment isn’t here to prosecute the most likely to be guilty or to 
serve the benifit of the doubt. It is a part of the justice system to prosecute 
individuals that have been convicted of a capital crime.

Every tax payer deserves a fair and thorough justice system that stands by its 
rules and if any court isn’t able to follow those rules and hold a fair case 
then they shouldn’t be allowed to carry out capital punishment. Today’s citizen 
is entitled to being prosecuted as righteously as possible to the full extent 
of the law, both that of the court systems and of the defendant.

A human being should not be allowed to make the decision to end a person’s life 
unless they know enough to make a solid decision without any holes in it. 
Capital Punishment is necessary in so many situations, but it can’t be 
inflicted without proper evidence.

If any court system can abuse the right to capital punishment then the entire 
system fails. If this judicial hat becomes just and unjust will turn into an 
obscured and unreadable line, and slowly the justice system will fail to show 
proper representation at all.

(source: Brandon Bond, The Summit, Benjamin E. Mays High School--Atlanta)