[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., CONN., VA., USA, MO.

Wed Feb 22 09:00:48 CST 2012

Feb. 22

PENNSYLVANIA:

Report calls pay for lawyers in Philly death-penalty cases 'grossly inadequate'

A report ordered by the state Supreme Court concludes that the pay for 
court-appointed lawyers in Philadelphia death-penalty cases is "grossly 
inadequate" and "unacceptably increases the risk of ineffective assistance of 
counsel."

The report, made public Tuesday, was written by Common Pleas Court Judge 
Benjamin Lerner, whom the high court ordered to assess the facts and legal 
issues on the subject and report back. It is now up to the Supreme Court to 
decide if it will act, and when.

Last year, The Inquirer reported that scores of Philadelphia death-penalty 
cases had been reversed by appellate courts or sent back for new hearings 
because of serious errors by defense attorneys. Low pay is a key reason, 
critics say.

In Philadelphia, fewer than 30 of 11,000 lawyers are willing to take 
capital-case appointments for indigent clients and also meet minimum state 
requirements for doing so.

And Philadelphia pays less than any other county in Pennsylvania, according to 
defense lawyers who petitioned the Supreme Court to increase the fees or halt 
death-penalty cases until that happens. The high court instead ruled that more 
information was needed and gave Lerner the assignment.

Lerner, who oversees homicide cases in Philadelphia, was told to determine if 
the pay for court-appointed lawyers was "so inadequate that it can be presumed 
that court-appointed counsel are constitutionally ineffective."

He also was asked if the problem needed to be dealt with "in a general, global 
sense," or case-by-case.

Lerner concluded that each case must be dealt with individually.

"However," he wrote, "the compensation of court-appointed capital defense 
lawyers in Philadelphia is grossly inadequate, both as to the dollar amount of 
the compensation and as to the compensation schedule provided by the present 
fee system.

". . . The existing compensation system unacceptably increases the risk of 
ineffective assistance of counsel in individual cases and is primarily 
responsible for the First Judicial District's growing inability to attract a 
sufficient number of qualified attorneys willing to accept court appointments 
in capital cases."

Lerner wrote that the shrinking lawyer pool had led to the prolonged 
dispositions of cases and, "in too many cases, has delayed justice to the 
threshold of denial."

Reached Tuesday evening, Lerner would not comment. "A lot of work obviously 
went into this, and I hope the report and recommendations will speak for 
itself," he said.

Lerner's report recommended that an additional $340,000 be spent in 
Philadelphia for capital-case attorneys. In 2010, the city spent $200,000 for 
such lawyers, he reported.

The Philadelphia fee system was established in 1997, with an update in 2002 
requiring two appointed lawyers in death-penalty cases.

The lead counsel gets a flat "preparation fee" of $2,000, which includes the 
first half-day of trial. For the rest of a trial, a lawyer gets $200 for half 
days and $400 for full days. A lawyer receives $1,700 fee for the penalty phase 
of a case.

For cases resolved before trial, a lawyer's preparation fee is reduced by 1/3.

(source: Philadelphia Inquirer)

CONNECTICUT:

Conn. legislators to raise death penalty repeal

After weeks of speculation, Connecticut lawmakers will once again raise 
legislation to repeal the state's death penalty.

The bill is expected to be brought before Wednesday morning's Judiciary 
Committee meeting, just making the committee's legislative deadline.

Committee members say they are unsure how the bill will fare.

Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield, a New Haven Democrat, said he's been working to gain 
the support of state legislators who previously opposed repeal.

Last year, repeal legislation failed in the Senate due, in part, to the 
on-going death penalty trial in a fatal Cheshire home invasion case. Two men 
convicted in the deaths of a woman and her two daughters are now on death row.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said he would sign legislation abolishing the death 
penalty for all future cases.

(source: Associated Press)

VIRGINIA:

Bill to expand Va. death penalty up for key vote in Senate committee

Legislation to expand the death penalty in Virginia is up for a key vote at the 
General Assembly.

The Republican-backed bill would redefine the so-called triggerman rule, which 
in most cases restricts the death penalty to the person who does the actual 
killing. The bill would allow the death penalty for accomplices who share the 
intent to kill.

Del. Todd Gilbert’s bill is on the docket for Wednesday afternoon’s Senate 
Courts of Justice Committee meeting.

2 weeks ago, the Senate’s own version of the bill died in the courts committee 
on a 7-7 party line vote, with 1 Republican abstaining because he accepts court 
appointments to represent capital murder defendants. The same vote on the House 
bill would doom the triggerman revision for the 5th consecutive year.

(source: Associated Press)

USA:

Bridging the Death Penalty Divide

I’d like to offer a simple proposal that, if enacted, could generate a great 
deal of a most precious resource: moral clarity.

It concerns the death penalty.

Opponents of capital punishment for murderers argue that the state has no right 
to take a murderer’s life. Apparently, one fact that abolitionists forget or 
overlook is that the state is acting on behalf of the murdered person and the 
murdered person’s family, not only on behalf of society.

In order to make this as clear as possible, here is my proposal: Americans 
should be able to declare what they want the state to do on their behalf if 
they are murdered. Those who wish the state to keep their murderer alive for 
all of his natural years should wear, let us say, a green bracelet and/or place 
a green dot on their driver’s license or license plate. And those who want 
their convicted murderer put to death can wear a red bracelet and/or have a red 
dot on their license.

Just as I have a pink “donor” circle on my driver’s license signifying that in 
case I die, I wish to provide my organs to help keep some person alive, I wish 
to make it known that if I am murdered, I do not want my murderer kept alive a 
day longer than legally necessary.

There are a number of reasons for recommending such a policy.

First, as noted, it is clarifying for the individual. It is easier to take a 
position in the abstract than when it hits home. It is one thing to oppose the 
death penalty when others are killed, but if you have to decide what happens if 
it is you who is murdered, the mind focuses with greater clarity.

Before deciding which color to choose, let a woman imagine herself raped and 
then stabbed to death. And let her further imagine that if this happened to 
her, she now has some say in determining what happens to the person who did 
this to her. She is no longer a silent corpse. Her voice will be heard, perhaps 
even be determinative of her killer’s fate.

Likewise, the woman who truly opposes death for any murderer, no matter how 
heinous and sadistic his actions, will also now have the ability to speak from 
the grave. No matter how much her family may seek the death penalty, family 
members will have no say. Any woman — or man — who passionately opposes the 
death penalty under every conceivable circumstance can now help to ensure that 
at least in his or her case, a murderer’s life that might have been taken might 
now be preserved. There is no more direct way to give death-penalty 
abolitionists the right to have a say over the fate of a murderer.

Second, such a choice gives great power to the individual. Abolitionists who 
live in pro-death-penalty Texas, for example, can now have a say on a matter of 
enormous moral magnitude.

And pro-death penalty citizens living in states that have either legally or de 
facto abolished the death penalty regain a sense of power over their life (or 
death, to be precise). The whole American experiment has been predicated on 
giving individuals as much control over their own lives as possible. But this 
has been undermined in the last 50 years, as the state has gotten ever more 
powerful. Giving murder victims say over their murderer’s fate would be a small 
but symbolically significant step in Americans reasserting the importance of 
the individual. It’s hard to imagine a more appropriate arena than in 
determining what happens to the person who murdered you.

As dark as thoughts of one’s own murder may be, we all think about it. And I 
don’t think I speak only for myself in saying that I would rest just a tiny bit 
better knowing that if I were murdered, my murderer might not be allowed to 
watch TV; read books; exercise; develop relationships with people inside and 
outside of prison; surf the Internet; sing; listen to music; have his health 
care needs addressed; and be visited by loved ones while I lay in my grave.

And for those opposed to the death penalty, they, too, will be able to rest a 
bit easier. They will be assured that even men who came to their home, raped 
all the females in their family, and then set the house on fire with the family 
inside — as happened in Connecticut a few years ago — would never be killed by 
the state.

Third, it would be interesting to see if these color-coded bracelets and 
licenses had any effect on who gets murdered. Clearly, when the murder is a 
crime of passion, it is hard to imagine that a would-be murderer would stop 
himself from killing someone upon noticing a red bracelet or a red dot on a 
license plate. But crimes of passion are generally not, in any event, punished 
by death. On the other hand, in murders that could be capital crimes, it is 
possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) that a murderer (or even more 
likely, his accomplice, if there were one) might just re-think murdering the 
victim.

Fourth, choosing which color bracelet or dot on one’s license not only forces 
people to confront their own consciences, but it will undoubtedly engender deep 
discussions with others. To cite but one example, it can surely help singles 
who are dating. If you’re against the death penalty, and your date drives up 
with a red bracelet and/or dot on his license plate, you’ll have either a far 
deeper discussion than you would have otherwise have had at dinner, or you’ll 
spare yourself the time and expense of a date that will probably go nowhere.

These are some of the arguments for the plan. I can’t think of one good 
argument against it — unless you’re an abolitionist who is fearful of seeing 
red.

(source: Dennis Prager, frontpagemag.com)

MISSOURI:

Please help us out be voting in this poll.  Thanks!

http://molawyersmedia.com/blog/2012/02/20/call-for-audit-of-death-penalty-cost/

--
Kathleen Holmes--State Coordinator
MADP
www.madpmo.org

__._,_.___
[stime=1329872228]

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully 
Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___