[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., VA., GA., FLA.

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 19



TEXAS:

Man on death row because in Texas, being black means you're dangerous?


Justice should be blind. It should be blind to race, income, class and other 
factors. However, in the case of Duane Buck, race played a major factor in his 
death sentence for capital murder.

In 1997, Buck was convicted for the capital murder of his former girlfriend, 
Debra Gardner, and her friend, Kenneth Butler. Buck was also convicted of 
shooting his step-sister, Phyllis Taylor, in the same incident.

During the capital murder sentencing, through testimony of Texas state licensed 
psychologist Dr. Walter Quijano, Buck's race became the centerpiece to the 
implementation of the death penalty. Shockingly, the Supreme Court cited that 
the race factor was the fault of Buck's lawyers because they called Quijano as 
their witness. However, the Supreme Court would not order his case to be 
resentenced, like several other similarly situated defendants.

>From the Texas Defender Service:

Defense Attorney: You have determined that the sex factor, that a male is more 
violent than a female because that's just the way it is, and that the race 
factor, black increases the future dangerousness for various complicated 
reasons; is that correct?

Quijano: Yes.

In June 2000, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn named 6 capital murder 
defendants due for resentencing, which Duane Buck was one of them. Cornyn knew 
that injustices occurred with the sentencing phases of these trials due to the 
psychologist's testimony that race was a factor in reoffending probabilities. 
Dr. Walter Quijano testified improperly in all 6 cases that being black was a 
reason the defendants would likely reoffend. Therefore, his testimony 
improperly sealed the death penalty sentences for each one. 5 of the cases were 
required to reopen for the sentencing phase, but Buck's was not one of them.

For Buck's sentencing, the defense called Dr. Walter Quijano. Dr. Quijano 
testified under defense questioning that Buck's likelihood of re-committing a 
crime was low. Conversely, under cross examination questioning by the state 
prosecutor, Dr. Quijano agreed with the prosecution's line of questioning that 
being black is a factor to consider for the future dangerousness of a person. 
This was similar testimony to the other 5 cases That Quijano testified in and 
the sentences were overturned.

However, when the United States Supreme Court reviewed Buck's case, the Court 
stated that the testimony about race was improper but the defense opened the 
door to this testimony since Quijano was their witness. Therefore, the Supreme 
Court would not overturn the sentence that was given. Basically, it was the 
defense's fault.

Buck may die because his lawyer called the wrong witness.

In capital murder convictions, there are several factors that can be considered 
in sentencing a person to life in prison or the death penalty. Sentencing is 
based upon 2 things: mitigating factors and aggravating factors. Mitigating 
factors are facts presented by the defense to ask for leniency, in this case, 
life without parole and not the death penalty. Mitigation includes the defense 
calling psychologists and witnesses to testify to a person's upbringing and how 
it influenced their behavior, IQ level and intelligence, lack of understanding 
what may have occurred, lack of criminal history and family ties. Family 
members and friends are often called to testify for leniency often begging for 
mercy on behalf of their loved one.

On the other hand, aggravating factors are those reasons why a person should be 
sentenced to a harsher sentence. The prosecution has the right to present 
testimony and evidence as to why a sentence should be stiffer. Examples of 
aggravating factors are: If the defendant is a future danger to commit crimes 
again, whether the defendant committed more than 1 murder at a time, the 
victim's age or if the murder was for monetary gain of some sort. Victims and 
victim's family members are often called to testify about the impact the 
defendant's actions had on them. However, race should never be a factor for 
aggravating circumstances, which was used in Buck's case. He testified that 
with Buck being black he was more likely to re-offend.

In the case of Buck, despite Quijano being called as a defense witness, he 
testified that with Buck being black he was more likely to re-offend. The 
inclusions of race as a factor is an unconstitutional argument and helped seal 
his death sentence. The prosecution took the defense's mitigation witness under 
cross-examination and made him testify as an aggravating witness by stating 
that being black is a factor in a person reoffending. This was a costly and 
potentially deadly mistake to Mr. Buck.

The wave of support to grant Buck a new sentencing hearing has been joined by 
many including one of the prosecutors on the case, Linda Geffen, who wrote on 
behalf of Buck to get a new sentencing hearing. Buck's step-sister Phyllis 
Taylor has joined the fight to get Buck resentenced as well.

5 of the 6 cases mentioned by former Texas Attorney General Cornyn were reheard 
for sentencing, all of which ended with resentencing to death.

(source: Opinion; Eric Guster is a civil rights and criminal defense trial 
lawyer----thegrio.com)

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

County, defendant face long trial after death of deputy----Capital murder case 
could cost millions


When Ian Cantacuzene heard on television the name Dan Higgins in connection 
with the shooting of a Midland County deputy, he said that he was "shocked" 
because in his experience with Higgins he found him to be a "very pleasant, 
very nice guy."

Cantacuzene, who was representing Higgins on a previous drug charge, then went 
to the Midland County jail to advise his client.

"What I did was go down to make sure he was OK, to tell him that I believe they 
are going to charge him with capital murder, potentially they were going to 
seek the death penalty, that he would need to remain silent, and that he would 
need to ask for a court-appointed lawyer," Cantacuzene said.

More than a week after Higgins is alleged to have shot and killed Sgt. Mike 
Naylor while he was serving an arrest warrant on Higgins, investigators and the 
District Attorney's Office have remained silent concerning the capital murder 
case.

But attorneys and experts reached for comment paint a picture of a long, 
stressful and complex process that could last as long as a decade and cost the 
county millions of dollars.

For Cantacuzene, who represented Clinton Lee Young, the last man Midland County 
sentenced to death row, the burden of a death penalty trial is both "scary and 
terrifying."

"You've got a person's life in your hands. That's the ultimate responsibility 
as a lawyer," he said.

"That is an awesome burden that keeps you awake at night. If you're not scared 
by it to some extent, you probably shouldn't be representing the person."

Al Schorre, a former Midland County district attorney who worked on 6 death 
penalty trials in his career, said that Midland County District Attorney Teresa 
Clingman and her legal team will be combing through the facts in the case and 
Higgins' history to determine whether they should pursue the death penalty.

"Even though it's technically a capital case, you try to make the assessment - 
is this a case that you think a jury would probably, a local jury, a Midland 
County jury, would be likely to return a sentence of death?" Schorre said in a 
phone interview with the Reporter-Telegram from his home in Colorado.

Both men agreed that the process will be long and costly, both in terms of 
man-hours worked on the case and money the county will have to put forth.

Keith Price, associate professor of criminology at West Texas A&M University, 
said that part of the calculation for the district attorney is the monetary 
cost of such a case, which can run upwards of $3 million.

"Is (the district attorney) willing to spend a couple of million dollars of 
[her] budget to give this guy the death penalty?" Price said. "You spend that 
money on one case, then that money ???s not available for other bad things that 
happen. So [she'll] have to be very careful about making that decision, and 
[she] won't make that decision for a long time."

While the death penalty is one of the options in the capital murder case 
pending against Higgins, Price said there is another option that carries a 
similar penalty but is not as costly: a capital life conviction without the 
chance for parole.

"Capital life you can get a plea bargain on, you can get the guy to plead 
guilty, he accepts life without parole, he's going to prison for the rest of 
his life, and you've accomplished the exact same thing from a retribution 
standpoint," Price said. "The guy's going to die in prison. Now, he's not going 
to die in the death chamber, but he's going to die in prison, so he is 
basically spent his life for the crime that he committed against this police 
officer."

Price, who formerly was a prison warden at the Clements unit near Amarillo, 
said that inmates in Higgins' position face a grim future.

"There's a really good chance that the state will, one day, put a needle in his 
arm, and extinguish his life," Price said. "Even if they don't do that, there's 
an even higher possibility that they will send him to the Texas prison system 
and let him stay there, however long that is, until he dies. Now, neither one 
of those are very nice options for one's life, so I suspect he [has] probably - 
if he's got any sense - some stress about him," Price said.

But there is no way to predict how the trial will turn out, Price said.

"It is a roll of the dice," Price said. "Nobody knows how a capital murder 
trial is going to play itself out."

(source: Midland Reporter-Teleglram)







PENNSYLVANIA:

Death penalty isn't an effective deterrent


Last Tuesday evening in a Montgomery County courtroom, a jury sentenced to 
death 28-year-old Raghanundan Yandamuri, a man convicted a week earlier of 
murdering a baby and the baby's grandmother.

A short while later, commenting on the sentence in a local TV interview, one of 
the prosecutors, Deputy District Attorney Samantha Cauffman, calmly told a 
reporter: "It won't give them back what they lost, but it is a sense of closure 
for them."

She was referring, of course, to the effect the execution (if carried out) 
would have on the victims' family.

Apparently, Cauffman is oblivious to the fact that the sentence she fought to 
bring about, and was now so cavalierly referring to, involves the cold-blooded 
killing of another human being - even if it is being carried out by the state 
on someone who has been convicted of murder.

At best, executing Yandamuri may satisfy a desire for vengeance or retribution 
among family and friends of the victims, and that's certainly understandable. 
But closure, which literally means "an ending" or a conclusion to the 
nightmares suffered by the family, is something a lot less certain. And killing 
- even by the state - is still killing.

In recent years, the word "closure" has been loosely bandied about in various 
types of tragedies by individuals who have no idea what it actually means.

Rather than true closure, there will probably be a great deal more anguish for 
the victims' family when Yandamuri goes through his lengthy appeals process.

Based on experience, that strategy is almost a certainty.

While Pennsylvania has the 4th-largest death row in the country, the only 
people who have been executed in the state since the reinstatement of the death 
penalty by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 were 3 inmates, all convicted of 
murder and put to death between 1995 and 1999.

And that was only after they had waived their appeals and asked that the 
executions be carried out.

Following just about every death penalty conviction, and often lengthy trials, 
the Commonwealth routinely goes through the expensive and additional 
time-consuming process of fighting appeals. Yet, almost all of these cases end 
with a life sentence.

According to a recent Associated Press study, 124 death sentences in 
Pennsylvania have been overturned and the individuals resentenced. When the 
original errors were corrected, 95 % (118) resulted in life sentences or less. 
Only 6 inmates were resentenced to death.

For a great many reasons, it's well past the time for the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania to join the 18 other states and the District of Columbia that have 
abandoned capital punishment.

Among the 18 are 4 of Pennsylvania's 6 neighboring states - New Jersey, New 
York, Maryland and West Virginia. Delaware and Ohio still have the death 
penalty.

In New England, with the exception of Vermont, capital punishment has been 
banned. And even in Vermont, it's only applied in the case of treason.

Before a Supreme Court decision in 1972 effectively banning such practices, 
death sentences could be imposed for crimes like cattle rustling (Texas), grave 
desecration (Georgia) and forcing a woman to marry (Arkansas).

Between 1977 (a year after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstituted the death 
penalty) and 2009, 1,188 people were executed in the U.S. - most of them by 
lethal injection.

82 % of those executions took place in the South, with 37 % of them in just 1 
state: Texas.

Texas has the 2nd-largest population of any state, trailing only California. 
However, since 1977, Texas has executed 517 inmates, while California has 
executed only 13 and none since 2006.

Proponents of the death penalty insist that it is an important tool for 
preserving law and order, that it deters crime and that it costs less than life 
imprisonment. They argue that retribution, or "an eye for an eye," honors the 
victim, helps console grieving families and ensures that the perpetrators of 
heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy.

Realistically, the proponents' claims are as convoluted as a skit on "Saturday 
Night Live." In effect, they maintain that to teach people that killing is 
wrong, the state often has to kill people.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that capital punishment has no deterrent 
effect on crime, that it wrongly gives governments the power to take human life 
and that it perpetuates social injustices by disproportionately targeting 
people of color and people who cannot afford good attorneys.

They further insist that lifetime jail sentences are a more-severe and 
less-expensive punishment than death.

FBI data supports the opponents' arguments that the threat of a death penalty 
rarely deters criminals. A report for 2011 reveals the states without capital 
punishment have homicide rates 18 percent below the states that retain it.

It additionally reveals the Northeast region of the U.S., which uses the death 
penalty the least, had the lowest murder rate of the four geographic regions 
throughout the country.

By contrast, the South, which carries out more executions than any other 
region, had the highest murder rate.

According to Amnesty International, 2/3 of the world's nations (141) have 
abandoned the death penalty, with the overwhelming majority of executions 
occurring in only 5 countries - China, North Korea, Iran, Yemen and, sadly, the 
United States.

These are certainly not the countries most citizens of the United States want 
to be grouped with.

(source: Commentary, Jerry Jonas; The Intelligencer)






VIRGINIA:

Va. medical examiner reverses ruling to no known cause of death in Prince Rams 
case


Virginia's chief medical examiner has reversed a ruling that a 15-month-old boy 
died by drowning in Manassas in 2012, finding that the cause of Prince McLeod 
Rams's death "should be changed to undetermined" and that "the possibility of a 
natural death cannot be totally eliminated."

The reversal was 1 of 2 key setbacks Friday for Prince William County 
prosecutors, who are seeking the death penalty against the boy's father, 
Joaquin S. Rams, whom they suspect of killing his son and 2 others as part of 
an attempt to collect 6-figure insurance payouts. Prosecutors moved to use the 
other 2 uncharged slayings as evidence against Rams, but Prince William Circuit 
Court Judge Craig D. Johnston denied their request. The judge ruled that "a 
propensity" to commit crimes is not admissible to prove guilt in one specific 
case.

"The case against Mr. Rams is incredibly weak" after the medical examiner's 
reversal, defense attorney Tracey Lenox said, arguing that prosecutors were 
trying to save the case by introducing 2 uncharged slayings. And the judge 
prohibited it, saying it would lead to "3 murder trials in 1."

Rams, 42, has been in jail without bond since his arrest in January 2013. 
Police in Manassas, where Prince Rams was allegedly slain in October 2012, long 
suspected Joaquin Rams in the March 2003 shooting death of his ex-girlfriend, 
Shawn Mason, and the November 2008 asphyxiation of his mother, Alma Collins, 
which was ruled a suicide.

In June 2013, prosecutors convened a special grand jury to hear evidence about 
the 3 cases. That grand jury then increased the murder charge in the Prince 
Rams case to capital murder and handed up a murder indictment for the slaying 
of Mason.

But last August, prosecutors quietly dismissed the murder charge in the Mason 
case. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney James A. Willett was not available to 
comment after Friday afternoon's hearing. No trial date has been set in the 
death-penalty case.

In addition to the sudden deaths of 3 people close to Joaquin Rams, all 3 had 
significant life insurance policies, including three policies totaling more 
than $500,000 on his young son, raising investigators' suspicions. Prosecutors 
said that Rams inherited more than $162,000 from his mother's estate but has 
not received any money from the policies for his son and ex-girlfriend.

"It is really the money that binds these cases together," Willett told the 
judge, "and establishes a single criminal enterprise."

But the prosecutor said he also needed the evidence of the other two deaths 
because "we don't have any direct evidence of the manner of death, as a result 
of" the new report by William T. Gormley, the state's chief medical examiner. 
Instead, Willett said, the other cases would provide circumstantial evidence 
that Rams killed his son.

The new medical examiner's report was sent to prosecutors last week. It 
overrules the original autopsy done by Constance R. DiAngelo, an assistant 
chief medical examiner for Northern Virginia, who concluded that because Prince 
was found naked, wet and cold and had fluid in his sinuses, lungs and 
intestines, he must have drowned.

Rams's attorneys argued last year that the boy was wet because his father had 
found him having a seizure, took him to a bathtub and splashed cold water on 
him until paramedics arrived. They also noted that Prince was on life support 
for more than a day, receiving intravenous fluids, before he died at Inova 
Fairfax Hospital on Oct. 21, 2012. The boy also had previously suffered a 
series of febrile seizures, or convulsions, including four in 24 hours the 
month before he died.

So Gormley reviewed DiAngelo's autopsy and in a letter to Prince William 
prosecutors wrote, "I have determined that the cause of death should be changed 
to undetermined." He said the fluid in Prince's body could have been caused by 
the fluids received in the hospital and that "some form of generalized epilepsy 
associated with febrile seizures cannot be ruled out and is supported by the 
history. .?.?. A homicidal manner of death cannot be proven to a reasonable 
degree of medical certainty with the available data."

Gormley was not available Friday to explain why he revisited the case, his 
assistant said.

But court records show that prosecutors were already searching for second 
opinions on the cause of death and did so shortly after a series of articles in 
The Washington Post last year in which medical experts and Rams's attorneys 
questioned the drowning finding. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Teresa A. 
Polinske contacted a forensic pathologist in Kentucky, a pediatric neurologist 
and epilepsy expert in New York, and a pediatric emergency doctor in Richmond. 
The prosecutor sent medical and police records, photos and surveillance videos 
and the articles in The Post.

Court records show that the emergency doctor agreed with the determination of a 
drowning. The neurologist concluded that Prince had been asphyxiated or 
drowned. The forensic pathologist strongly disagreed with the drowning finding, 
saying the death was possibly seizure-related and consistent with "Sudden 
Unexplained Death in Childhood."

(source: Washington Post)






GEORGIA:

DA seeking death penalty against men charged in couple's deaths, says other 
slayings likely


Authorities in Atlanta say 2 men accused of killing a pregnant woman and her 
fiance may have killed others.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against 40-year-old Andre Cleveland 
Gay and 41-year-old Richard Augusta Wilson in the slayings of Briana Brooks and 
Jeronta Brown.

The 2 DeKalb residents were kidnapped on Aug. 30 and killed when a ransom 
wasn't paid.

Authorities say they believe Gay and Wilson are responsible for other deaths.

Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard said Friday the 2 men killed at least 7 
people there. And Atlanta police expect to tie more unsolved murders to the 
men.

Gay was paroled after serving time for a double murder, and Wilson is out on 
parole after pleading guilty to manslaughter and robbery.

Defense attorneys for the men haven't commented.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Faith & Values: Little is easy about capital punishment


Little is easy about capital punishment cases, save for the raw anger such 
cases universally evoke.

Capital punishment typically involves heinous crimes by perpetrators who appear 
brazenly bereft of empathy for their victims. These cases deeply violate our 
sense of decency. And they violate our sense of moral contract. The city of 
Richmond has had its fair share of such cases, as has Virginia.

Such crimes not only affect innocent victims, they also have a devastating 
impact on the lives of those victims' families, their friends and other loved 
ones - to say nothing of surrounding communities. And this is often equally 
true for the families of the perpetrators. Victims all.

As University of St. Thomas law professor Mark Osler, a former federal 
prosecutor, says, "It is all tragedy."

This month, the University of Richmond School of Law will offer 2 programs 
addressing capital punishment. The 1st is a daylong symposium on Friday titled 
"Lethal Injection, Politics and the Future of the Death Penalty."

The 2nd is an evening program on Oct. 28 titled "Jesus on Death Row: The Trial 
of Jesus and the American Capital Punishment System."

Both programs will afford an opportunity to consider our use of the death 
penalty in the commonwealth of Virginia, the third-leading state in the country 
in the use of capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1976 (Virginia: 
110; Oklahoma: 111; Texas: 517).

Both programs should prove to be engaging and thought-provoking.

"Jesus on Death Row," however, may prove to be the more challenging of the 2 
programs.

The challenges surrounding lethal injection, the politics of capital punishment 
and other issues affecting the death penalty's future are important aspects of 
the conversation. Yet, comparatively, these are easier to consider - as safer, 
more intellectual aspects of the conversation.

Considering capital punishment from the perspective of faith renders the issue 
infinitely more complex and confounding.

Our initial impassioned response to such heinous crimes is a visceral sense of 
rage, with accompanying cries for retribution and justice Yet, in the Christian 
faith, Scripture tells that Jesus asked for forgiveness on the cross, not 
revenge or retribution. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

And we respond in chorus, "No way, kill the murderers! We want justice!"

It strikes me that the faith journey begins at the point when we are most 
consumed by anger - with fists clenched in righteous rage. This is where Jesus, 
as he often does, confronts and confounds us. When and where we are most 
broken. And it is through the open wounds of our brokenness that God's grace 
engages us.

The Old Testament argues for retribution: an eye for an eye, murder for murder. 
Not Jesus. Jesus preaches forgiveness and mercy.

By extension, most major faith traditions have opposed capital punishment for 
decades - as has my Episcopal tradition since 1958.

In his new book "Dear Friends," the Rev. Christopher Webber writes in a "Saint 
Paul inspired" letter to Texas, asking, "And how, if you value life, can you as 
followers of Jesus Christ use the law to bring death to those who have taken 
the lives of others? Did not Jesus, dying under the law, forgive his murderers 
and open heaven to his fellow sufferer? Can you truly imagine that Jesus would 
condemn anyone to death? How can we as Christians, condemned by the law 
ourselves and forgiven in Jesus Christ, condemn others no matter how evil their 
deeds?"

We as Virginians, along with Texans, need to consider these difficult 
questions.

Webber goes on to say, "Let them be removed from society and allowed 
opportunity to understand the evil they have done and repent and find 
forgiveness but let us not stain our own hands with the blood of others." I 
heartily concur.

Life is for God to take, and God alone.

Chicago public defender Jeanne Bishop chronicles this very faith journey in her 
forthcoming book, "Change of Heart; Justice, Mercy and Making Peace with My 
Sister's Killer."

At the trial of Jesus at UR, Bishop will defend Jesus and argue for life. Osler 
will represent the commonwealth, applying Virginia law, and argue for death. As 
in Scripture and as in our "modern" legal system, a jury of citizens will 
decide.

In the end, faith challenges us to struggle with the difficult truth that we 
are all children of God, even those who appear to be the worst among us.

(source: Craig Anderson is a psychologist and the director of counseling 
services at Randolph-Macon College. He is an active member of the Church of the 
Holy Comforter and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia----Richmond 
Times-Dispatch)






FLORIDA:

Scott, Crist both tough on crime, but different


As the state's chief executive, the governor of Florida wields significant 
power over the court system and has great influence on how the state keeps the 
public safe.

Rick Scott and Charlie Crist have different views of how that power should be 
employed. Though both men say they endorse the death penalty, by and large, 
Scott advocates a harder line on crime. Crist says he, too, is tough but that 
he favors a more balanced approach. These differences in tenor are evident in 
the 2 candidates' positions on guns, prison sentences, civil rights and 
judicial appointments. A former Republican now running as a Democrat, Crist 
used to embrace the nickname "Chain Gang Charlie," earned as a state senator 
when he sponsored legislation to revive chain gangs.

Now, he says, times are different. In addition to long prison sentences, the 
state should consider what works and how to reintegrate felons into society to 
make them less likely to commit more crimes, he says.

Asked if he still should be called "Chain Gang Charlie," Crist balked.

"It's important to remember the context of the original 'chain gang' 
legislation: Florida was seeing record high crime and folks didn???t feel safe 
in their homes," he said in an email response. "I believe in justice - but I 
also believe in mercy."

Crist has also tempered his support of former tough-on-crime laws, including 
one he sponsored, the Stop Turning Out Prisoners act, which requires prisoners 
to serve 85 % of their sentences, as well as 10-20-Life, which stiffened 
minimum mandatory sentences for gun crime.

"I fully support the concepts of the STOP Act and 10-20-Life, and I'm not 
necessarily in favor of changing them, but after 15 and 20 years it is 
appropriate to review them and see if they can be improved," Crist said.

Republican Scott's campaign says Crist's stance is just another example of the 
former governor reversing positions. The incumbent says this is no time back 
down.

"Law enforcement officials agree that Charlie Crist's flip-flop on important 
policies like mandatory minimum sentencing and 10-20-Life threaten the progress 
we've made in achieving a 43-year low in Florida's crime rate," said Scott 
campaign spokesman Greg Blair.

Those laws have contributed to the growth in the prison population and 
increased costs for the Department of Corrections.

When Scott ran for governor in 2010, he promised to cut $1 billion from the 
state's $2.4 billion budget for prisons. He made cuts but was unable to keep 
that pledge; the prison budget now is $2.1 billion.

With more than 100,000 inmates and 55 prisons, Florida, the third most populous 
state, has the third largest prison system in the country. But federal 
statistics also show Florida also has one of the highest incarceration rates in 
the country, with 524 people behind bars for every 100,000 people in 2012.

7 of the prisons, with about 10,000 inmates, are privately run, and Scott has 
fought unsuccessfully to expand the privatization of prisons.

As governor and a state legislator, Crist also targeted prison budgets. In 
2007, under Crist, Corrections Secretary James McDonough proposed saving money 
by erecting tents for some inmates and putting some to work in road crews.

When the economy slid in 2009, Crist wanted to use money set aside for building 
prisons to plug holes in the budget. A year earlier, his budget proposal called 
for a budget increase of $186 million for construction of facilities for 4,149 
new prison beds.

Crist says he opposes further privatization. "Private prisons focus on filling 
beds rather than rehabilitating those who find themselves behind bars," he 
said.

The prison system has also been the focus of scandals, with the Florida 
Department of Law Enforcement investigating 82 cases in which inmates died of 
nonnatural causes. The department has fired dozens of employees, several over 
allegations that they punched and beat inmates.

The controversies, Crist said, underscore that the department "needs a 
comprehensive review of both its prison operations and its budget. We need to 
improve correctional officers' training, basic services to inmates, and the 
rehabilitation programs that will reduce recidivism."

Asked if Scott still hopes to cut $1 billion from the prison budget and if he 
still plans to expand prison privatization, his campaign spokesman did not 
respond directly, saying Scott "is proud that his administration has saved 
money in the corrections system while achieving a 43-year low in Florida's 
crime rate."

Crist and Scott differ sharply on how to treat felons after they have served 
their sentences.

Shortly after he became governor, Crist pushed through changes to grant 
nonviolent former felons an automatic restoration of their civil rights, 
including the right to vote. Crist said at the time that people convicted of 
crimes should be able to move forward after paying the price levied by judges 
and juries.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, an estimated 154,000 former 
felons had their civil rights restored under Crist after the reforms he 
initiated in April 2007, a rate that was previously about 8,000 annually. The 
change was supported by civil rights groups but opposed by some law enforcement 
organizations.

After Scott took office in 2011, he and Attorney General Pam Bondi rolled back 
Crist's changes, saying nonviolent former felons should have to wait up to 5 
years and violent felons 10 years before applying to have their civil rights 
restored.

A 2012 study by a national group that advocates for post-release rights found 
Florida had the nation's highest percentage of people prohibited from voting 
because of a felony record - 10.4 % of the total adult population and 23 % of 
adult African-Americans.

Asked several questions about criticism of his rollback, the Scott campaign 
responded with a single sentence: "Governor Scott respects the process that is 
in place for restoring rights for convicted felons."

This hard-line vs. moderate approach carries over into the 2 candidates' 
positions relating to guns.

Earlier in his career, Crist and the National Rifle Association were the best 
of friends. The gun rights group endorsed Crist when he ran unsuccessfully for 
U.S. Senate against Marco Rubio and gave him a grade of A on its report card 
designed to guide voters.

As governor, Crist was known for signing pro-gun rights measures into law, 
including one that allows people to bring their weapons to work and leave them 
in the trunks of their cars. This time around, the NRA has a different view of 
Crist. The organization's latest grade for him is a D, compared to A+ given for 
Scott.

NRA official Chris W. Cox said, "Rick has signed more pro-gun bills into law in 
one term than any other governor in Florida history."

Scott has signed 12 NRA-backed bills into law, nine more than Crist.

Asked if Scott supports restricting access to assault weapons or increasing 
background checks for gun purchases, his campaign said Scott "is a strong 
supporter of the Second Amendment. In 2013, he signed legislation, with the 
support of Second Amendment advocates as well as mental health professionals, 
that helps keeps firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to 
themselves."

Among the laws signed by Scott was one recently upheld by a federal appeals 
court that bars doctors from asking patients about their guns or recording that 
information in records unless it was medically necessary.

Crist now favors expanded background checks for gun purchases.

"I'm a believer in the Second Amendment, and I grew up hunting," Crist said. "I 
don't think you need an assault rifle to hunt a deer. But what's most important 
is making sure we keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

The 2 men have different styles when it comes to picking judges, but both have 
been accused of trying to appeal to political constituencies in their judicial 
selections.

Crist picked 4 Supreme Court justices, with his 1st 2 very conservative and his 
2nd focused on making the court more diverse. In each instance, he was 
described by observers as trying to shore up voting blocs.

Scott has not had the opportunity to appoint any Supreme Court justices but has 
clashed with the Legislative Black Caucus by telling members he won't pick 
judges who think differently than he does to achieve diversity.

In January, the caucus canceled a meeting with Scott, saying it was 
disappointed in part in his failure to promote diversity in the judiciary.

In May, the Florida Bar released a report critical of Scott and calling for 
more diverse judicial appointments. Saying the judiciary is "woefully 
unrepresentative" of the state, the report noted that just 16 % of 981 state 
judges are nonwhite, a portion that has remained about the same since 2000.

(source: Tampa Tribune)