[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----NEB., ARIZ., CALIF., WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

May 31



NEBRASKA:

FDA says Nebraska can't legally import execution drug



A push to execute 10 condemned men despite the repeal of Nebraska's death 
penalty was confronted with yet another hurdle Friday when a federal agency 
said the state cannot import a critical lethal injection drug.

Gov. Pete Ricketts said he agrees with the attorney general that Nebraska 
should be able to execute its death row inmates upon receiving the drugs it 
recently bought from a broker in India.

The state has already paid $54,400 to replace 2 lethal injection drugs that had 
expired.

"Our plan is to proceed with the executions," the governor said Friday during a 
press conference that marked the end of the 2015 legislative session.

In the 18 other states that have repealed capital punishment, no death row 
inmates have been subsequently executed, said Robert Dunham, director of the 
Death Penalty Information Center.

In 2 states that have abolished the death penalty - New Mexico and Connecticut 
- the fate of those on death row remains unsettled.

In Nebraska, the intentions of the governor and attorney general were thrown 
into doubt Friday when an official with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
said the state can't legally import 1 of the 2 drugs, an anesthetic called 
sodium thiopental.

"At this time, we have no indication, aside from media reports, that sodium 
thiopental has recently been imported into the United States by state officials 
or correctional systems," said Jeff Ventura with the FDA. "With very limited 
exceptions, which do not apply here, it is unlawful to import this drug, and 
the FDA would refuse its admission into the United States."

The 2 drugs purchased from the foreign supplier are part of the state's 3-drug 
lethal injection protocol.

After being informed of the FDA's statement, James Foster, a spokesman for the 
Nebraska Department of Corrections, said the agency has been advised by the 
attorney general that its actions are "proper and legal."

"We are following all the legal procedures that the agency is aware of," he 
said, adding that the drugs are being manufactured. "There is no FDA rule or 
case law that the agency is aware of that would categorically preclude the 
importation of these 2 drugs."

The question of FDA oversight of foreign-manufactured lethal injection drugs 
stems from a 2013 court decision.

In Cook v. FDA, a federal court ordered the FDA to prohibit the importation of 
lethal injection drugs that fail to meet the agency's standards. The part of 
the ruling on the FDA's role in lethal injection drugs was upheld by the 
District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Doug Peterson has said the 2013 ruling does not apply to 
Nebraska because the state was not party to the case, which involved death row 
inmates in Arizona, California and Tennessee.

Dale Baich, assistant federal public defender in Arizona who represented 
inmates in the Cook case, called the attorney general's conclusion 
"ridiculous."

"If the drug is not FDA approved, it cannot be imported to the United States," 
Baich said, explaining that the court ordered the agency to regulate 
importation of all lethal injection drugs.

The governor announced the purchase of the drugs on May 14. His office has not 
directly answered whether the drugs had met FDA approval. Rather, the 
governor's spokesman has said that the drugs would be tested for purity by an 
independent laboratory after their arrival.

Ricketts said Friday that he had no timetable for when the lethal injection 
drugs will arrive from India. Based on emails obtained through a public records 
request, the supplier said he would ship the drugs within 60 days.

Under Legislative Bill 268, the death penalty would be repealed, effective in 3 
months, and replaced by life in prison.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, the chief sponsor of the law, said that 
while the Legislature cannot change the death sentences of those already on 
death row, the repeal removed the statutory means for conducting an execution.

That, he said, leaves the death row inmates with a sentence that can't be 
carried out.

Chambers said he told his fellow senators during debate on the repeal bill that 
the state would not be able to obtain the drugs. On Friday, he maintained that 
stance and predicted that the governor and attorney general would not succeed 
in their effort to carry out an execution.

The attorney general would first have to request a death warrant for 1 of the 
inmates, which would have to be approved by the Nebraska Supreme Court. 
Chambers said the court would carefully consider any legal questions 
surrounding the lethal injection drugs before setting an execution date.

"The governor and the attorney general aren't dealing with politicians now, 
they're dealing with judges who respect the law and the constitution," Chambers 
said.

The Attorney General's Office earlier had generally agreed that the men on 
death row would obtain de facto reprieves under the repeal. But Peterson now 
says that upon further review of court cases, he believes there remains a legal 
controversy over what happens to the 10.

Peterson said his office has found cases in which a state legislature has been 
barred from accomplishing something through legislation that it is blocked by 
the constitution from doing. In this case, that would be changing a sentence 
from death to life in prison.

"Our position is that the passage of the legislation should not affect the 
status of the 10 on death row because they've already been sentenced, and the 
lethal injection procedures that were in place are the ones that should be 
applied," Peterson said.

The attorney general said his office would seek a declaratory judgment to 
clarify the issue from the Nebraska Supreme Court, probably in September, after 
LB 268 is scheduled to go into effect.

"It's a legal question that needs to be clarified," Peterson said.

In some other repeal states, the death row inmates had their sentences commuted 
to life in prison by governors or were ordered resentenced by the courts. 
Decisions on the fate of death row inmates in New Mexico and Connecticut are 
pending in the high courts of those states.

(source: World-Herald)

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

Timeline: Ernie Chambers' crusade against the death penalty



----

To pass a bill

-- A bill is approved by the Legislature when a simple majority of state 
senators - 25 of 49 - vote yea.

-- 30 votes are needed to override a governor's veto.

Terms

General File: the 1st stage at which a bill is considered by the full 
Legislature. Bills on General File may be amended, returned to committee, 
indefinitely postponed or advanced to Select File.

Select File: the 2nd stage at which a bill is considered by the full 
Legislature. Bills on Select File may be amended, returned to committee, 
indefinitely postponed or advanced to Final Reading.

Final Reading: the third and last stage at which a bill is considered by the 
full Legislature. The clerk reads the entire bill aloud, unless final reading 
is waived, and senators vote without debate on whether to submit the bill to 
the governor.

[source: Legislative Research Office]

----

After the U.S. Supreme Court ended a moratorium on the death penalty in 1976, 
State Sen. Ernie Chambers embarked on a mission to abolish it in Nebraska. In 
every legislative session in which he's served since, the north Omahan has 
pushed bills to repeal the death penalty, change death sentences to life 
sentences or halt executions. This year, he reached his goal.

Death penalty legislation introduced by Chambers, and its disposition:

1976: LB 702 is indefinitely postponed on General File.

1977: LB 64 is on General File at the end of the session and carried over to 
1978.

1978: LB 64 is indefinitely postponed on General File.

1979: LB 262, which would repeal the death penalty and replace it with a 
mandatory 30-year prison sentence, is approved by the Legislature with 25 
votes. Gov. Charles Thone vetoes it, and an override attempt fails.

1980: LB 762 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

1981: LB 202 is on General File at the end of the session and carried over to 
1982.

1982: LB 202 is indefinitely postponed on General File.

1983: LB 202 is in committee at the end of the session and carried over to 
1984.

1984: LB 202 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

1985: LB 70 is on General File at the end of the session and carried over to 
1986.

1986: LB 70 is indefinitely postponed on General File.

1987: LB 675 is on General File at the end of the session and carried over to 
1988.

1988: LB 675 is indefinitely postponed on General File.

1989: LB 596 gets a committee hearing but is carried over to 1990.

1990: LB 596 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

1991: LB 327 is on General File and carried over to 1992.

1992: LB 327 is indefinitely postponed on General File.

1993: LB 651 is in committee at the end of the session and carried over to 
1994.

1994: LB 651 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

1995: LB 18 is in committee at the end of the session and carried over to 1996.

1996: LB 18 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

1997: LB 331 is in committee at the end of the session and carried over to 
1998.

1998: LB 331 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

1999: LB 76, which would impose a 2-year moratorium on executions, is approved 
by the Legislature by a 27-21 vote. Gov. Mike Johanns vetoes it, and there is 
no override attempt.

2000: LB 1118 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

2001: LB 18 is in committee at the end of the session and carried over to 2002.

2002: LB 18 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

2002: In a 3rd special session, LB 19 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

2003: LB 791 is in committee at the end of the session and carried over to 
2004.

2004: LB 791 is indefinitely postponed in committee.

2005: LB 760 is in committee at the end of the session and carried over to 
2006.

2006: LB 760 is indefinitely postponed.

2007: LB 476 is on General File at the end of the session and carried over to 
2008.

2008: LB 476 is indefinitely postponed on General File.

2009-2012: After a measure instituting term limits goes into effect, Chambers 
sits out of the Legislature for 4 years.

2013: LB 543 is on General File at the end of the session and carried over to 
2014.

2014: LB 543 is indefinitely postponed on General File.

2015: LB 268, which repeals the death penalty, is approved by the Legislature 
by a vote of 32-15. Gov. Pete Ricketts vetoes the bill. The veto is overridden 
by a 30-19 vote.

(source: omaha.com)

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

Uniqueness of unicameral enabled death penalty repeal



As a matter of politics and policy, the significance of the death penalty 
repeal by the Nebraska Legislature cannot be overstated.

In the world of politics, the death penalty is normally an issue backed by 
conservatives, of whom there is no shortage in Nebraska. Conversely, liberals 
usually support repeal. But this time, political and social thought on both 
sides merged to form a broad coalition in opposition - broad enough to override 
a veto by Gov. Pete Ricketts.

How could this coalition of different views band together to arrive at such a 
momentous and seemingly surprising outcome? Largely because of the uniqueness 
of the Nebraska Legislature, which not only allowed the outcome but also 
encouraged it.

Nebraska is well known for having the only nonpartisan, unicameral legislature 
in the United States. What is less appreciated is how this unique structure 
affects the path of legislation.

In traditional legislatures based on partisan affiliation, such as the U.S. 
House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the majority party generally 
controls the floor calendar. This allows the party leadership to choose which 
bills are considered, if and when they receive a vote, and whether and how they 
can be amended.

In our unicameral, with no majority party, no such discretion exists. Instead, 
every bill introduced gets a public hearing. And no speaker or committee 
chairman can bottle legislation up if it has majority support.

The absence of parties in the unicameral also encourages legislators to form 
unexpected coalitions - a rare occurrence in partisan settings. And as a small, 
single chamber of only 49 members, the unicameral can be nimble and responsive. 
Its legislation need not be coordinated with that of another body.

All of these features contributed to the death penalty repeal and veto 
override. But most remarkable is the sheer diversity of reasoning that led 
senators from disparate backgrounds to the same conclusion.

As noted in the Nebraska Legislature's Unicameral Update, Sen. Tanya Cook, a 
Democrat from Omaha, supported repeal of the death penalty because it had not 
deterred violent crime. "It is not our role to be deliverers of vengeance," she 
said. Sen. Tommy Garrett of Bellevue, a conservative, called the death penalty 
"a moral and ethical issue," saying, "the state has no business playing God, 
and in fact is quite bad at it."

Omaha independent Ernie Chambers, a 40-year veteran of the Legislature who 
introduced a bill to end the death penalty 37 times, spoke about wrongful 
convictions, saying that the number of convicted individuals who later are 
exonerated "proves that some people have been wrongly executed." And 
conservative Republican Colby Coash of Lincoln said, "My desire to protect 
innocent life leads me to worry about a fallible system that has the power to 
take a life."

The unicameral structure is not the only factor behind the repeal and override. 
National trends also played a role. Concerns over the administration of the 
ultimate sanction - stemming from such factors as seemingly botched executions, 
states' difficulties in obtaining effective drugs for lethal injections, and 
longstanding racial and other disparities - have been growing for years.

In the past, Gov. Ricketts' argument that the death penalty is a deterrent that 
"protects law enforcement and Nebraska families" may have carried the day. But 
with the homicide rate rising, the high cost of endless appeals, the chance of 
executing innocent people and uncertainty over how executions could be carried 
out, the governor failed to sway enough senators to sustain his veto.

Many in the national media are asking how a conservative state like Nebraska 
could repeal the death penalty. An MSNBC headline stated, "Conservatives turn 
on Republican governor," and CNN noted "Nebraska became the 1st conservative 
state to outlaw the death penalty in 40 years."

The answer is simple: The structure and organization of the Nebraska 
Legislature aligned with the shifting dynamics of a national issue. The real 
question is whether the same combination of legislative structure and political 
dynamics will produce similar lightning bolts from Lincoln on other fast-moving 
national issues, such as medical marijuana and gay marriage, in the coming 
years.

Such results, if they occur, may be surprising on the national stage. But they 
will not surprise Nebraskans familiar with what our unique political system can 
do.

(source: Opinion -- Paul Landow, Ph.D.; The writer is a professor in the 
department of political science at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He 
writes as an individual and not on behalf of UNO----omaha.com)








ARIZONA:

In Nebraska, death takes a holiday



Last week, Nebraska overrode a governor's veto and abolished the death penalty 
in that state, joining 18 other states and Washington, D.C., in ending the 
death penalty.

It's time for Arizona - and any other state that still has a death row - to do 
the same.

Nebraska's move received extra attention because the vote to overturn included 
support from conservative Republicans, some of whom support the death penalty.

They had various reasons, but the one we should focus on is the one that offers 
the most sound reason for ending capital punishment: It's a very expensive 
government program that doesn't work.

Nebraska hasn't executed anyone since 1997, when they still used electrocution. 
The state can no longer get all the drugs required in its lethal injection 
protocol, a situation faced by many states. And all the while, death row 
inmates are being housed in a separate wing, given access to lawyers at 
taxpayer expense, and generally living long lives in captivity before dying of 
natural causes.

The costs are significant. Studies have shown that death penalty cases cost 
hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute, while non-death-penalty cases - 
even other murders - cost a fraction of that amount.

One study was close to home, at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada. It said 
Clark County could save $15 million a year by not pursuing the death penalty in 
murder cases. That figure, by the way, is just attorney costs. It doesn't count 
the cost of court staff, inevitable appeals, and housing on death row.

Capital punishment has long been held out as a deterrent - that is, it will 
either give criminals pause because they don't want to face the needle, or it 
can be used as a bargaining chip to force a plea deal and avoid an expensive 
trial.

Good hypotheses, but once again pesky facts get in the way. I cite (again) a 
study by the Denver Criminal Law Review, which found this: "There is no 
evidence that the death penalty provides even a marginal deterrent benefit 
above a long prison sentence ... In short, the death penalty imposes a major 
cost without yielding any measurable benefits."

The death penalty is a political issue, so this debate isn't over. One Nebraska 
lawmaker has vowed to get the issue on the ballot in 2016, so we'll see how 
that goes.

In the meantime, Arizona's lawmakers should take a long look at what went down 
in the Midwest. They are forever saying the state needs to save money - here's 
a way to do it without cutting services that help the state, like higher 
education and a little help for those who are struggling.

So let's be forward-looking and fiscally sound.

You know - like Nebraska.

(source: Editorial, Daily Miner)








CALIFORNIA:

5th man convicted in Tsawwassen businessman's 2007 California murder sentenced 
to death

The 5th and final person convicted in the 2007 murder of a Tsawwassen man in 
California has been sentenced to death.

Robert Lee Dunson was the last of 5 suspects to be tried in the murder of 
well-known Tsawwassen businessman Bill Dobbs.

Dunson was found guilty in March of 1st-degree murder in the slaying in Indio, 
California, where Dobbs and his common-law wife, Toni Dawson, had just 
purchased a vacation home. Because the murder occurred during a robbery, Dunson 
qualified for the death penalty.

Death penalty sentences are subject to an automatic appeal. In 2012, Dunson's 4 
co-accused - Jackie Lynn Dunson (Robert Dunson's sister), Fernando Antonio 
Benavidez, Ronald Wesley Handwerk and Rogelio

Leon Zuniga - were all convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance 
for parole.

Dobbs, 48, and Dawson were vacationing in the area when he was murdered.

He was last seen alive leaving the Fantasy Springs Resort Casino with another 
man, later identified as Benavidez, at around 3:45 a.m. on Nov. 26, 2007.

A passing motorist found his body on the side of an Indio road the next day.

The avid golfer was a long-time member of the Beach Grove Golf Club. He had 2 
grown children and a grandson. Dobbs had a family-owned janitorial company.

(source: The Province)








WASHINGTON:

Jury nullification of death penalty sends strong message to prosecutors



A jury's decision to not impose the death penalty should force King County 
Prosecutor Dan Satterberg to reconsider whether to seek capital punishment.

A King County jury's refusal to impose the death penalty on Joseph McEnroe 
recently was an important moment in efforts to ban capital punishment in 
Washington.

McEnroe was convicted of a particularly heinous crime: killing 6 members of his 
ex-girlfriend's family on Christmas Eve 2007, including pulling the trigger on 
a child still in diapers. But the jury appears to have engaged in what's known 
as nullification - basing a verdict on conscience, not necessarily law or 
evidence.

Excellent reporting by The Seattle Times' Jennifer Sullivan documented how 3 
jurors refused even to deliberate. "I know people were mad," said 1 of 4 
dissenting jurors, who prevented the unanimous verdict required for a death 
sentence. "I made my decision, and my conscience is fine with it."

That jury room angst illustrates a trend in Washington and nationally, as the 
public awakens to the fundamental problems with states being agents of death. 
19 states ban the death penalty. Nebraska joined the list last week. Governors 
in at least 3 other states - Washington, Colorado and Oregon - have imposed 
moratoriums.

Gov. Jay Inslee's moratorium, however, did not dissuade King County Prosecutor 
Dan Satterberg from seeking capital punishment for McEnroe or in 2 other 
pending cases - against McEnroe's girlfriend, Michelle Anderson, and alleged 
cop-killer Christopher Monfort.

But the McEnroe jury's failure to impose the death penalty should prompt 
Satterberg to stop seeking capital punishment in King County. Just 26 % of King 
County residents support the death penalty, according to an unreleased poll 
conducted by the ACLU of Washington, an opponent of capital punishment, this 
spring. 63 % favored some form of life in prison for these crimes.

That opposition - which is shared by The Seattle Times editorial board - is 
rooted in philosophical and practical reasons. Prosecuting death-penalty cases 
costs at least $1 million more than those seeking life in prison. The 3 recent 
and current King County death-penalty cases combined cost at least $14 million, 
and counting.

The death penalty has no proven deterrent value, but is guaranteed to prolong 
the grieving of victims' families in years of appeals. Pam Mantle, whose 
daughter and 2 grandchildren were shot by McEnroe, told The Seattle Times she 
and her husband were "happy" with the verdict "because we don't ever have to 
deal with it again."

Out of 33 death sentences imposed since Washington reinstated the death penalty 
in 1981, just 5 inmateshave been executed - 3 of them chose to waive appeals. 4 
current members of death row have been waiting there since the 1990s.

The jury verdict in the McEnroe case suggests it may be futile to reach for 
capital punishment in King County. We'll know more definitively with Monfort, 
whose case is expected to go to the jury early this week. If convicted, the 
jury would then hear arguments for and against a death sentence.

Coincidentally, Monfort studied jury nullification as an undergraduate at the 
University of Washington and advocated for its use. If his jury replicates the 
McEnroe jury's outcome, he would be spared death and would die in prison. A 
second such outcome should fundamentally change Satterberg???s decision to seek 
the death penalty.

(source: Editorial board members are editorial page editor Kate Riley, Frank A. 
Blethen, Ryan Blethen, Brier Dudley, Mark Higgins, Jonathan Martin, Thanh Tan, 
Blanca Torres, William K. Blethen (emeritus) and Robert C. Blethen 
(emeritus----Seattle Times).








USA:

Voice of The Southern: With Watts trial, federal blood lust comes to Illinois



Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Alleged Vermont murderer Donald Fell. And, 
James Watts, accused of last summer's stabbing murder of 2 bank employees in 
Cairo. Federal prosecutors could care less if a state has rejected the death 
penalty.

Just last week, Nebraska became the 19th state to abolish capital punishment. 
The staunchly conservative Legislature overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' veto and 
joined the wave of states disavowing capital punishment. Illinois exited the 
killing-for-closure business in 2011.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors are increasingly relentless in their blood lust, 
regularly intervening in states that have forsaken capital punishment. While 
the states 1-by-1 reject the costly, error-prone approach to justice, the feds 
are doing it with increasing regularity. And they're doing it without regard 
for the will of the people.

Massachusetts had to face this reality earlier this month when the 21-year-old 
Boston bomber was convicted by a federal jury. Several of Tsarnaev's victims 
asked that his life be spared.

Watt's trial has been repeatedly delayed as his attorney prepares for a capital 
murder trial. Both Watts and the victims' families will have to wait until 
January 2017 for justice to play out. That's 2 1/2 years since the stabbing 
deaths of First National Bank Branch President Anita Grace and employee Nita 
Smith. Both the accused and the families of Grace and Smith deserve better. 
They deserve a fair-but-swift process, as defined by the Sixth Amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution.

But don't blame Watts' defense, who sought the lengthy continuance. They have 
good reason. They're merely reacting to a faulty system and rabid federal 
prosecutors.

A lead defense attorney will spend 1,350 hours on the average death penalty 
trial, including preparation and research, says criminal justice researchers at 
the University of Las Vegas. That's a 746-hour increase over non-death penalty 
trials.

And for what? Years of appeals and massive expense.

It wasn't always this way.

Until the 1990s, the federal death penalty was reserved for rare, egregious 
offenses not covered by state law. The U.S. Justice Department's use of capital 
punishment rapidly expanded following the World Trade Center bombing in 1994. 
Death penalty opponents see the proliferation as a vehicle of political 
expedience. And the trend has accelerated since the 2001 terrorist attacks, 
they contend.

It's a case where federal policy flies too often directly in the face of much 
of the country. The death penalty, in states with capital punishment on the 
books, is rarely sought by state and local prosecutors outside of the South. 
That remains true even while opinion polls show public support for the death 
penalty consistently hovers above 50 %.

In the wake of gruesome, highly publicized bungled executions, red and blue 
states alike are getting out of the killing business. It's too brutal. It's too 
expensive. It drags on for years, even decades, thanks to endless appeals.

Yet the U.S. Justice Department's expanding blood lust regularly contradicts 
the state and its people.

It's an ugly reality with which the people of Massachusetts must now grapple. 
And now, thanks to tone-deaf federal prosecutors, it just might happen here.

(source: Editorial Board, The Southern Illinoisan)

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

Analysis: Martin O'Malley Is Hillary Clinton's Strongest Rival, But He's Still 
Behind Her



Throughout last year, then-Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley was making appearances 
in Iowa and New Hampshire and giving speeches around the country to tout 
himself as a potential Democratic presidential candidate. At the same time, a 
group of liberal activists were organizing a campaign called "Ready for 
Warren," urging Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to get into the 
presidential race.

These 2 developments were related. O'Malley, who was governor of Maryland from 
2007 until earlier this year, has been trying to cast himself as the 
alternative to Hillary Clinton for Democrats who either are tired of the 
Clinton family or prefer a more liberal candidate. And Democratic activists 
have essentially ignored O'Malley raising his hand in favor of begging Warren 
to run, even as the senator keeps insisting she will not.

O'Malley is probably the strongest candidate in the Democratic field to take on 
Clinton. (Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and ex-Virginia Sen. Jim Webb are also 
seeking the nomination, and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee is expected 
to jump in the race as well.)

But O'Malley, like the other 3 men, is ill-positioned to defeat Clinton.

The most obvious reason why O'Malley will struggle is the strength of Clinton.

In 2007, she was the front-runner, but many key party activists and donors were 
not behind her. A huge bloc instead supported Barack Obama, another group was 
with ex-North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. And Clinton's vote to back the Iraq 
War loomed as a divide between herself and Democratic activists, particularly 
in Iowa.

There remains some tension between liberals and Clinton now. They are worried 
she is too centrist, unwilling to adopt views like calling for the break-up of 
large Wall Street banks, as Warren advocates.

O'Malley has sought to court the Warren crowd by adopting liberal policy views, 
like calling for debt-free college and tougher regulations on banks that were 
weakened during Bill Clinton's administration.

But it's not clear that Warren herself could defeat Clinton, and O'Malley's 
campaigning over the last year has not made him the champion of the left so 
far. Many prominent liberals have either endorsed Clinton, are still waiting 
for Warren to run or are backing Sanders.

And powerful figures in the party, even in O'Malley's home state of Maryland, 
have signaled they are not excited about his candidacy. U.S. Sen. Barbara 
Mikulski of Maryland has endorsed Clinton, even though O'Malley's mother (also 
named Barbara) has worked in Mikulski's Senate office since 1987.

So Clinton is an overwhelming favorite to defeat O'Malley. But if one of her 
rivals is somehow able to win a few primaries and make Clinton work hard in the 
Democratic nomination process, it is likely to be O'Malley.

Why? First, Chafee, Sanders and Webb lack the political skills of O'Malley. 
Chafee and Sanders both won statewide office in tiny states, with Chafee having 
the advantage of his father, Richard, being his predecessor in the U.S. Senate. 
Webb has only won 1 election - to the U.S. Senate in 2006.

O'Malley has managed to reach the top of politics in a large, complicated state 
where a Democrat has to navigate both a large black electorate and a bloc of 
white Democrats who occasionally vote Republican. He was elected twice to be 
mayor of Baltimore. O'Malley then won by comfortable margins in the 2006 and 
2010 gubernatorial races. (Democratic candidates lost the governorship in the 
elections that preceded O'Malley (2002) and followed him (2014).

O'Malley was praised for reducing crime in Baltimore as mayor, but there is now 
much debate over his record there. Violent crime was dropping in nearly every 
city in America during O'Malley's tenure (2000-2006). And the death of Freddie 
Gray, the unarmed black man who died in the custody of the Baltimore police in 
April, brought to national attention both the pockets of deep poverty in the 
city and its police force's reputation for using excessive force.

(source: NBC news)

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

More Conservatives Are Coming Out Against The Death Penalty



Marc Hyden said a Georgia-based tea partyer came up to him in February with a 
bit of a confession. "I've been against the death penalty for 30 years," the 
man said. "I just never told anyone."

It's a sentiment Hyden, a coordinator for Conservatives Concerned About The 
Death Penalty, said he has heard quite a bit since the organization launched 
about 3 years ago. CCADP is a network of political and social conservatives who 
question how the death penalty truly aligns with core conservative values like 
sanctity of life, fiscal responsibility and a limited government.

"I think the question of 'do you support the death penalty' can be confusing," 
Hyden told The Huffington Post last week. "If you change the question from - do 
you support the death penalty or not,' to 'would you support replacing it with 
life without parole,' the numbers shift dramatically."

Since its formation, CCADP has had a booth at the Conservative Political Action 
Conference, the annual gathering of conservative activists known for its 
big-name speakers and lively exhibition hall.

"We were really nervous our 1st time going about the reception we would 
receive," Hyden's co-coordinator, Heather Beaudoin, said. "Now, we're seen as a 
welcome part of the establishment, which is really interesting. No one 
questions whether or not we belong and we've shown that there are lot of 
conservatives who are concerned about the death penalty."

At the most recent conference, CCADP wasn't attracting as many people as, say, 
the National Rifle Association's shooting game or the folks giving out "Stand 
with Rand" T-shirts, but a few curious folks stopped by.

"I worked at the NRA before [CCADP], so I was used to being the darling of the 
conservative crowd," Hyden said. "I thought [CCADP] would be tarred and 
feathered, but it was the opposite."

A Pew Research survey published this month indicates support for capital 
punishment among Republicans has fallen 10 % in the past 2 decades. While the 
decline appears gradual, Gallup Poll numbers show that Republican support for 
the death penalty dropped 5 % from 2013 to 2014, from 81 percent to 76 %.

Nowhere is the shifting attitude more apparent than in Nebraska, where the 
nonpartisan, single-house legislature recently voted 30-13 in support of a bill 
that would repeal the death penalty.

The Republican coalition supporting LB 268, which would replace the death 
penalty with a sentence of life without possibility of parole, argues capital 
punishment conflicts with conservative values.

But some fellow Republicans -- including Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, who has 
vowed to veto the bill -- call the death penalty an important tool for public 
safety.

"If it deterred crime, you'd expect states like Texas to have the lowest murder 
rate," Hyden said.

For its part, CCADP focuses on getting the death penalty repealed on a 
state-by-state basis. Hyden said the group doesn't much deal with the federal 
death penalty -- which affects cases like that of convicted Boston Marathon 
bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

"Because of our tax status, we don't get involved with elected politics," Hyden 
adds when asked about the group's stance on the current crop of 2016 Republican 
presidential candidates. "That's not to say we don't keep an eye on [where they 
stand]."

Hyden said the group has had meaningful talks with and been welcomed by figures 
with "serious conservative credentials": former Republican National Committee 
Chairman Michael Steele, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Fox News correspondent 
Col. Oliver North.

"But on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have someone like [Texas Gov.] 
Rick Perry, who says he sleeps quite fine after signing somebody's death 
warrant," Hyden said. "I have to feel troubled when I hear things like that."

Hyden said he's optimistic that once conservatives truly stop and consider the 
reality of the death penalty -- "it's a big government program that risks lives 
and it's extremely costly and fails at all its goals" -- a growing number will 
support ending it in America.

"It's becoming more difficult to ignore because it's out there and folks are 
really having conversations on it," Beaudoin said. "The more you know about 
this issue, the more you're going to be concerned about the death penalty and 
the way it's being carried out. People are waking up and saying, 'this really 
isn't worth it anymore.'"

(source: Kim Bellware, Huffington Post)

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

Death penalty parameters should be widened



In light of the recent conviction of the Boston Marathon bomber and his 
subsequent sentence of death, there has been a new call for the abolishment of 
the death penalty.

If I had my way, if anything, the parameters of the death penalty would be 
widened to include such things as child molestation or murder, second or third 
conviction for hard drug sales and distribution and any DUI conviction wherein 
someone has been killed or maimed.

If that sounds harsh, I don't believe it is any harsher than the pain and 
suffering the victims of these crimes and their families endure because of the 
selfish actions of the perpetrators of these same crimes.

Regarding DUI offenders, I speak from personal experience as we lost a beloved 
son, brother, father, grandfather and nephew who was killed by an impaired 
driver. The driver, who initially was sentenced to only 18 months, which was 
little enough penalty, but under our inept justice system and in my mind an 
unethical judge, was released after only serving 2 months.

I'm not saying all of these convicted folks should get the death penalty, but 
these penalties should be there to leave that prospect open to the prosecutors.

Darl Mills

Mount Gilead

(source: Letter to the Editor, Mansfield (Ohio) News Journal)

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

Only 1 of 6 Americans Sentenced to Death are Actually Executed



A convicted criminal sentenced to death in the United States faces only a small 
chance of actually being executed.

Statistics compiled by political science Professor Frank R. Baumgartner at the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill show that only 1 in 6 inmates 
(1,359 out of 8,466) put on death row from 1973 to 2013 were executed.

However, the low national rate belies the fact that 2 U.S. states have much 
higher rates of following through on capital punishment sentences. In Virginia, 
110 out of 152 people put on death row were executed, or 72%.

Baumgartner attributed Virginia's high rate to the fact that it limits the time 
1 can appeal a death penalty sentence to 1 year. "If your appeals aren't filed 
within 12 months, your case will be considered to be final," he told the BBC 
News.

The state with the 2nd highest rate is Texas, which executed nearly 1/2 of its 
prisoners to receive the death penalty, 508 out of 1,075, or 47%.

For those sentenced to death by a federal court, their odds for eventually 
being executed are also very low. During that same 40-year time period, the 
federal government has sentenced 71 people to death, but only executed 3. 
Currently there are 56 inmates on death row by federal sentencing.

At the other end of the spectrum is California, which has executed only about 
1% of its inmates on death row.

Currently, 32 states still have the death penalty, while 18 have outlawed it. 
The most recent state to do away with it is Nebraska, which banned it last 
week.

As of the end of 2013, there were 3,194 U.S. inmates who had their death 
sentences overturned and 392 who had them commuted. That left 2,979 individuals 
remaining on death row.

"It's a death penalty in name only," said Baumgartner.

Although a majority of Americans currently support the death penalty in cases 
of murder - 56% in favor versus 38% opposed - support has slowly been slipping, 
having dropped 6 % points since 2011, according to the Pew Research Center.

(source: allgov.com)