[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., OHIO, NEB., N. MEX.

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 11




PENNSYLVANIA:

Recent court ruling in James Dennis case shows why Pa. should abolish death 
penalty


On Aug. 24, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of James A. 
Dennis. Dennis was convicted and sentenced to death over 2 decades ago for 
killing a high school student in Philadelphia. But there was more to the story.

Prosecutors deliberately kept evidence of his innocence from Dennis as well as 
the jury. The ruling is encouraging for those of us opposed to the death 
penalty. It should be a cautionary tale for all of us. To those who would like 
to speed up the execution process by limiting appeals, I ask that you consider 
that if we had "expedited" Dennis's case, Pennsylvania would have executed an 
innocent man.

His case is exactly why people who support the death penalty in theory, have 
problems with its actual practice. This case is a glaring example of why the 
state needs to get out of the business of killing its citizens. The 
Pennsylvania justice system is flawed and it's important to understand that all 
justice systems, because they involve human beings, are similarly flawed. 
Honest mistakes are made.

In this case, there was no "mistake" made. The dishonesty of the prosecution 
almost killed Jimmy Dennis. The state has already taken away over twenty years 
of his life. It could have ended his life. If we don't end the use of the death 
penalty, we will almost certainly execute an innocent person. Let's not take 
that chance.

RAZVAN VITEAZU, Spring Twp., Berks Co.

(source: Letter to the Editor, pennlive.com)






OHIO:

Death penalty possible in trial for 2013 double murder


Monday marks 1,327 days since police say Harvey Lee Jones shot and killed two 
people while the 10-year-old son of one of the victims hid upstairs.

Jones, 37, could face the death penalty if he's found guilty in the Jan. 24, 
2013 aggravated double murder of Carly Hughley, 32, and Demetrius Beckwith, 29.

Jones' potential 3-week trial is scheduled to begin Monday in Montgomery County 
Common Pleas Court after years full of motions. If Jones is found guilty, the 
jury would then hear a mitigation phase to determine whether he should be put 
to death.

Defense attorney Dennis Lieberman estimated that jury selection could take most 
of the week and that opening statements might not happen until Friday. 
Lieberman said there are about 180 to 190 prospective jurors in 4 different 
pools to consider the case from early 2013.

"Death penalty cases are very serious; there's no room for being wrong because 
you can't release somebody from prison if they're dead," Lieberman said 
Saturday. "I think the court and system itself wants to make sure that all 
possible motions are filed that need to be filed and that the investigation is 
as thorough as it can possibly be."

Jones pleaded not guilty to 6 counts of aggravated murder, 2 counts of 
aggravated burglary, 2 counts of kidnapping, 2 counts of aggravated robbery, 
and one count of having a weapon under disability. All but 1 charge has an 
added mandatory 3-year firearms specification.

Prosecutors said Jones - a previously convicted sex offender who served a 
decade in prison - shot both people in the presence of Hughley's then 
10-year-old son in a Harrison Twp. apartment.

"The defendant made both of these victims lie on the floor and shot both of 
them multiple times, killing both of them," prosecutor Mat Heck Jr. said during 
a press conference more than 3 years ago. "After the defendant stole a number 
of items from the deceased victims, he fled the residence. The 10-year-old 
child then left the residence and went to a neighbor's and summoned help."

Heck said then that the child plans to testify in court. The now 14-year-old 
boy called 911, identified Jones by name and described the car Jones drove. 
Jones was arrested hours after the alleged crime.

"It's always traumatic when you have to rely and put a child through this type 
of an ordeal, but it???s something that this child is able to do and most 
children can do," Heck said in 2013. "He'll be fine and he???s doing fine."

Montgomery County Sheriff Phil Plummer said in January 2013 that detectives 
were working to determine Jones' motive but said he and Hughley had a previous 
relationship and he had moved out of the Catalpa Crossing Apartment Complex 
apartment on Turner Road.

FOLLOWING THE STORY

We covered the death penalty-eligible case from its beginning in January 2013. 
Jones is the only Montgomery County Common Pleas Court defendant facing 
possible death as a penalty. (source: Associated Press)






NEBRASKA:

How much does the death penalty cost Nebraska? Economist stands by his $14.6 
million-per-year figure, despite criticism


Life or death.

When it comes to crime and punishment in Nebraska, what costs more?

As they go to the polls in November to pass judgment on the Nebraska 
Legislature's 2015 repeal of capital punishment, voters will consider an issue 
laden with ethics, justice, religion, public safety - and economics.

In a sense, Nebraskans will soon decide whether the death penalty is literally 
worth keeping.

The greater weight of the evidence suggests the death penalty costs more than 
life in prison without parole. Beyond a reasonable doubt, death penalty cases 
involve more lawyers, they generate more appeals and they demand significantly 
more court time to resolve than other serious felonies.

What remains debatable is the magnitude of the cost.

The expense of capital punishment has been the subject of dozens of studies in 
states ranging from California to Kansas to North Carolina. All have reached 
conclusions similar to that of Creighton University economist Ernie Goss, who 
recently estimated the death penalty costs in Nebraska at $14.6 million per 
year.

Goss also concluded that each death penalty prosecution costs the state about 
$1.5 million more than a case with life in prison as the maximum penalty.

The $16,000 study, funded by the anti-death penalty group Retain a Just 
Nebraska, quickly came under fire by supporters of capital punishment. They 
attacked the approach and said they thought the figures were inflated.

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, a strong supporter of the death 
penalty, was particularly pointed in his criticisms. He faulted Goss for not 
seeking data directly from state agencies and for relying on other death 
penalty cost studies, some of which are sponsored by opponents of capital 
punishment.

"It's game time when the public is potentially influenced by poor factual 
information," Peterson said.

Goss has defended his methods and said his figures, if anything, are low. In 
turn, he challenged the attorney general and other critics to put up their own 
reports for public scrutiny.

The World-Herald sought the opinion of Eric Thompson, an economics professor at 
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. After conducting a thorough review, 
Thompson said Goss employed methodology widely used by other economists and the 
study's conclusions are supported by underlying data.

His only criticism: a decision by Goss and his team not to report a range, to 
give people an idea how much more or less than $14.6 million the cost could 
run.

"I would have to say, by and large, they provided a lot of evidence there are 
some additional costs to the justice system in having the death penalty," said 
Thompson, who has collaborated with Goss on economic studies unrelated to the 
death penalty.

After a 10-minute skim of Goss' report, however, another economist dismissed 
the study along with all others that conclude the death penalty costs more to 
maintain than life without parole.

Anthony Yezer, a professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., 
said such studies fail to account for what's called the "plea-bargain effect." 
The term refers to the role the death penalty plays in potentially saving trial 
costs by convincing some accused killers to plead guilty to their crimes rather 
than risk execution.

Death penalty opponents frequently argue that the death penalty has no 
deterrence effect. But Yezer disagrees. And he said Goss made no attempt to 
factor in how much the fear of execution could save the criminal justice system 
by potentially preventing a murder.

"What's the cost of the murders that would have happened if Nebraska hadn't had 
capital punishment?" asked Yezer, author of a textbook titled "Economics of 
Crime and Enforcement."

In taking his own swipe at the Goss report, Gov. Pete Ricketts held up a 2015 
analysis by the Legislature's Fiscal Office that concluded any cost savings 
derived by repealing the death penalty would, at most, be minimal. The Fiscal 
Office analysis was done as lawmakers debated the historic repeal of capital 
punishment.

"Dr. Goss' study was based on non-Nebraska numbers and is misleading for those 
voting on the death penalty in November," said the governor, who helped fund 
the petition drive that put the referendum on the ballot.

Goss called his decision to write the study and wade into the death penalty 
debate the "greatest mistake of my career." Describing himself as a political 
conservative who had been a "full-throated supporter of capital punishment," 
Goss said his cost study unleashed a wave of angry emails from death penalty 
supporters.

Nonetheless, he didn't back down from his conclusions.

Critics are wrong, Goss said, when they say he didn't use Nebraska numbers. The 
analysis that resulted in the $14.6 million annual expense relied on justice 
cost data that Nebraska courts, counties and state agencies reported to the 
U.S. Census Bureau.

If anything, Goss called his estimate conservative because it did not include 
law enforcement expenses. In addition, the economist used data from all states 
over a 2-year period in order to increase the sample size and make it 
statistically significant.

"Those numbers are darn good," he said, adding that the margin of error was 1/2 
a percentage point.

But he expressed much less confidence in his estimate that death penalty 
prosecutions cost $1.5 million more. He relied on 19 studies from other states 
to come up with that number, which he said has a margin of error of plus or 
minus 18 % points. In addition, the sample size was too small to be 
statistically significant.

Nonetheless, Goss pointed out that the Legislative Fiscal Office relied on 
reports from 3 state agencies and the Douglas County Correctional Center to 
conclude that the death penalty results in minimal financial impact.M

What about the costs incurred by the other 92 counties or the courts, Goss 
asked.

"If I used the Legislative Fiscal Office methodology I would have been 
ostracized by economists across the nation," Goss said. "It's just wrong, 
wrong, wrong."

In response, Fiscal Office Director Michael Calvert said it would be improper 
for him to comment on Goss??? report because it could be viewed as taking a 
position on the death penalty referendum. The fiscal note by his staff was 
based on agency information and the "analyst's knowledge of, and experience 
with, assigned agencies, allowing him to arrive at an opinion on cost 
consequences with passage of the bill."

Kent Scheidegger, a death penalty supporter and legal director of the Criminal 
Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, California, said he generally agrees 
that death penalty cases cost more. But after reviewing Goss' report he was 
skeptical of the $14.6 million figure.

To come up with the figure, Goss used an economic tool called multiple 
regression. Regression involves writing an equation consisting of variables 
that could impact a state's spending on justice. Goss' equation included 12 
variables.

Scheidegger said the choice of variables for a regression analysis can greatly 
affect the outcome, and he said that some of the variables Goss included were 
"odd." For example, Goss factored in the % of each state's population that is 
black or Catholic.

Scheidegger said the study should have better explained the author's reasoning 
for such choices.

In response, Goss said it's common for a regression analysis to include racial 
and religious characteristics of a given population. He argued that both the 
black and Catholic populations in the state could affect how much the death 
penalty is pursued.

In his study, Goss also attempted to address the plea-bargain effect, which 
could save states some criminal justice costs by reducing the number of cases 
that go to trial. He suggested the death penalty does not prompt more 
defendants to plead guilty, but he incorrectly attributed the source material 
behind that conclusion. After the misquoted source raised an objection, Goss 
acknowledged the error.

But other research also indicates Goss wrongly concluded the death penalty 
doesn't result in a plea bargain effect, said Yezer, the George Washington 
University economist.

Yezer pointed to a 2006 study published in an academic journal that compared 
plea bargain rates in capital cases both before and after New York reinstated 
the death penalty in 1995. The study concluded the number of murder cases that 
ended with a guilty plea increased by 26 % after 1995.

The potential cost savings from the plea-bargain effect aren't accounted for in 
death penalty studies, Yezer argued.

Goss countered by saying his analysis did factor in plea bargaining in the 
sense that nearly all states engage in the practice.

And he also argued that plea bargaining can sometimes cost taxpayers, too. He 
mentioned the Beatrice 6, a wrongful conviction case in which the threat of the 
death penalty was one of several factors that influenced five Nebraska 
defendants to plead guilty or no contest to crimes they did not commit. A 
federal jury recently ordered Gage County to pay $28 million in damages for a 
reckless investigation in the case.

Perhaps the strongest critic of the Goss analysis is the attorney general. 
Peterson took issue with the state studies, which Goss relied upon to come up 
with the $1.5 million estimate of an individual death penalty prosecution. The 
studies conclude that death penalty appeals are a major cost driver, but 
Peterson said that's not the case in his office.

Each year the 9 lawyers in the criminal appeals section handle about 500 
appeals, Peterson said. 5 or fewer of those appeals involve death penalty 
cases, which equates to about 1 % of the total.

Peterson provided a spreadsheet that shows the annual budget for the appeals 
division runs about $950,000; 1 % of that budget equals $9,500.

And while other state studies have concluded it costs more to house inmates on 
death row, state officials say that???s not the case in Nebraska. The annual 
cost of housing each of the 10 death row inmates at the Tecumseh State Prison 
is about $37,000, the same as other inmates at that institution, said 
Dawn-Renee Smith, spokeswoman for the State Department of Correctional 
Services.

Death row inmates are kept in single-occupancy cells within an area called the 
special management unit, while in the general population, inmates share cells. 
But Smith said each prison gallery is staffed with a single corporal, 
regardless of the classification of the inmates.

Peterson's point: "These numbers are out there. He could have gone to the 
agencies and asked for them."

Peter Collins, assistant professor of criminal justice at Seattle University in 
Washington, has reviewed dozens of death penalty cost studies across the 
nation. He said he has determined about 30 of the studies are scientifically 
sound and will use them for a meta-analysis he is working on.

All of the studies concluded the death penalty costs more, he said. The $14.6 
million cost cited in the Goss study is not out of line with what some other 
states have found, he added.

"The evidence is clear it costs more," he said. "How much more, I'm not sure 
we'll ever be able to know that without better record keeping."

Goss has made a similar point in response to those, like the attorney general 
and governor, who fault him for not seeking expense reports from individual 
counties or agencies.

He argued it would be difficult, if not impossible, for state and county 
officials to accurately break out the costs associated with a system that is as 
old as Nebraska itself. It would be like asking the faculty at Creighton 
University, where Goss works, to identify how much being affiliated with the 
Jesuits adds to the cost of the institution.

Shortly after the study was released last month, Goss appeared on a talk radio 
show where the host challenged his methodology. In reply, Goss asked how the 
host would have done it.

"I'm not the economist," the host replied.

To which Goss said: "That's right, I'm the economist."

(source: Omaha World-Herald)

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

Call on your conscience


Gerald Fitzpatrick, a Sept. 2 Public Pulse writer, believes that since there 
has been no Ex Cathedra statement against the death penalty, the Catholic 
Church does not oppose capital punishment.

Fitzpatrick is wrong to limit his sense of moral obligation to such statements. 
The final arbiter of our moral decisions is conscience. And we are obliged to 
form our conscience not only by reason but by the guidance of the ordinary 
magisterium of the church, i.e., the teaching of councils, popes and bishops.

Papal teaching has become increasingly insistent that state-sponsored death as 
a penalty is always wrong. And state-sponsored killing of a convict in defense 
of public safety, while permissible as a last resort, is in our time rarely, if 
ever, necessary.

We must vote to retain the repeal of the death penalty, which the Nebraska 
Legislature wisely passed in 2015 for the good of all Nebraskans.

Marylyn Felion, Omaha

(source: Letter to the Editor, Omaha World-Herald)

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

Some Nebraska incumbents face challengers backed by Ricketts


Conservative Republicans who want to unseat Nebraska lawmakers are finding a 
new ally in Gov. Pete Ricketts, who is actively working to elect like-minded 
senators who promise to stay true to their word.

In an Associated Press interview, Ricketts said he's endorsing legislative 
challengers who have pledged to govern as they campaigned and who reflect what 
he believes are their constituents' wishes.

The Republican governor said he wants more conservative lawmakers who will 
deliver on promises to lower taxes and slow state spending growth. Critics say 
he's trying to impose his will on the Legislature, which handed him a series of 
high-profile defeats during his 1st year in office in 2015.

Some of the candidates backed by Ricketts are challenging incumbents who voted 
against the governor on major proposals to repeal the death penalty, raise the 
state's gas tax and allow professional and driver's licenses for people brought 
as youths to the country illegally. Each of the bills passed when Republican 
and Democratic senators joined forces to override Ricketts' veto.

Ricketts said many of the incumbents' votes conflict with promises they made as 
candidates.

"As a voter, if you disagree with me and you're up front about it, at least I 
know that when I vote for you," he said. "I think what's frustrating for voters 
is when a candidate says, 'I'm in favor of this issue,' and then they reverse 
themselves. I want candidates to live up to their campaign promises."

Former Gov. Dave Heineman played a similar role in legislative contests, 
although prior governors traditionally steered clear. In 2012, he endorsed 
Republican Bill Kintner over incumbent state Sen. Paul Lambert, whom Heineman 
had appointed the previous year.

Lambert ran afoul of Heineman when he voted to override the governor's veto of 
a bill that allowed cities to raise their sales tax by a half cent. Heineman 
said at the time that Lambert, who lost the election, promised during his 
vetting to oppose sales tax increases.

Ricketts said he may endorse in other legislative races, but declined to offer 
specifics. So far he has walked with candidates in parades, stood with them at 
town hall events, spoken at fundraisers and contributed to their campaigns.

Ricketts said he doesn't mind policy disagreements but wants candidates who are 
willing to take a collaborative approach. He pointed to his work this year with 
senior lawmakers from both parties to pass a property tax package, school 
funding reforms and a major roads-funding bill.

"All of those things happened because the executive branch and the legislative 
branch worked together," he said.

2 Republican incumbents facing challengers, Sens. Les Seiler of Hastings and 
Jerry Johnson of Wahoo, said they were disappointed but not surprised the 
governor backed their opponents.

Seiler said Ricketts is trying to exert control over a Legislature that acted 
independently after weighing issues based on their merit. Although he initially 
supported the death penalty, Seiler said he voted to abolish the punishment 
after becoming convinced that keeping it was impractical and a waste of tax 
dollars.

Ricketts "wants a bunch of Muppets who will dance to his tune while he pulls 
the strings," Seiler said.

Seiler also serves as chairman of a legislative oversight committee that is 
investigating the state's corrections department, a part of Ricketts' 
administration. Last week, Ricketts criticized the committee for "grilling" the 
department's director for half a day and not taking a more collaborative 
approach. Seiler said lawmakers have a duty to find out what resources the 
department needs.

Seiler's challenger, retired farmer Steve Halloran, said he shares Ricketts' 
beliefs on the death penalty, taxes and licenses for youths who entered the 
country illegally. Halloran said he believes Seiler's votes run afoul of what 
most of his constituents want.

"My word is my bond," Halloran said. "If you can't keep your word, you don't 
have anything."

Johnson said he has worked with Ricketts on many issues related to agriculture 
but differed with him on the immigrant licensing bill, the gas tax increase and 
a "right to farm" measure opposed by the state's leading farm and ranching 
groups.

His opponent, Brainard farmer Bruce Bostelman, has pitched himself as a 
"consistent conservative" who opposes tax increases and public benefits for 
people in the country illegally.

Johnson said his votes were based on what he considered his district's best 
interests.

The licensing bill and gas tax increase were supported by agricultural groups, 
and Johnson said many of his constituents agreed with his position after 
hearing his rationale. Johnson opted to repeal the death penalty during an 
early vote in the Legislature, but decided to support it during a later vote 
after Ricketts asked him for more time to resolve problems acquiring lethal 
injection drugs.

"The votes I've made represent the interests of my district and agriculture, 
and it's very frustrating that I get this for doing what I think is the right 
thing," Johnson said. "The people the governor endorsed - he's going to own 
them."

Ricketts' endorsements could backfire if the incumbents win re-election, but 
the governor said he's happy to take the risk.

"The candidates I've backed are tremendous individuals," he said. "I have no 
regrets, no matter how any of the races turn out."

(source: Associated press)






NEW MEXICO:

Mother's call for death penalty challenges beliefs on Navajo Nation


Soon after Gov. Susana Martinez said she wanted legislators to reinstate the 
death penalty in New Mexico, the mother of an 11-year-old girl who was 
kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered on the Navajo Nation stirred debate 
about capital punishment on the state's largest reservation.

Spotlighting frustrations with violent crime on the Navajo Nation, Ashlynne 
Mike's mother, Pamela Foster, called on tribal leaders to authorize the death 
penalty.

"People say respect life as sacred, and slowly, with the creator's help, we 
will find the right solutions for our people," Foster wrote in an online 
petition that has since gained nearly 400 signatures. "Well, the right solution 
is changing the criminal justice system because crimes are outrageous on native 
land."

Martinez had mentioned Ashlynne's murder as an example of just one of the 
killings to shock New Mexico in the past year as reason to return to capital 
punishment, at least in the certain cases, such as the murders of children or 
law enforcement officers.

But the Navajo Nation, like nearly every other tribe, outlaws the death 
penalty. Federal prosecutors, not state authorities, are responsible for 
prosecuting homicides on tribal lands. So, regardless of any decision by the 
state Legislature to reinstate the death penalty, capital punishment is likely 
to remain rare in Indian Country.

While the issue may be one of justice for families such as Ashlynne's, for 
tribal leaders, whether to permit capital punishment remains intertwined with 
tribal sovereignty and core beliefs.

Federal prosecutors can seek the death penalty even in states where it has been 
abolished. But Congress in 1994 gave tribes the option of deciding whether the 
death penalty will apply to tribal members who commit murder on tribal land.

The Navajo Nation pressed for what became known as "the tribal option." Helen 
Elaine Avalos, assistant Navajo attorney general, told members of a 
congressional committee more than 20 years ago that the death penalty would not 
solve the struggles that lead to crime.

"The vast majority of major crimes committed on the Navajo Nation and within 
other Indian reservations are precipitated by the abuse of alcohol," Avalos 
said. "The death penalty will not address the root of the problem. Rather, 
rehabilitation efforts will be more effective."

Even so, federal prosecutors can still pursue the death penalty for certain 
crimes that fall under the U.S. government's jurisdiction both inside and 
outside Indian Country. This is true even if the offense is committed on tribal 
land.

Lezmond Mitchell, a member of the Navajo Nation, is the only Native American on 
federal death row because the U.S. government, not the tribe, believed he 
should be executed.

A jury convicted Mitchell of murdering a 65-year-old woman and her 9-year-old 
granddaughter. The attacks occurred after Mitchell and a friend who was 16 
hitchhiked near Fort Defiance, Ariz., in late 2001.

Mitchell, then 20, and his friend bummed a ride from Alyce Slim as she drove 
with her granddaughter, Tiffany Lee, to the nearby town of Sawmill.

Along the way, Mitchell and his friend, Johnny Orsinger, killed Slim by 
stabbing her 33 times. Then they drove Tiffany to the nearby mountains, cut her 
throat and bashed her head with rocks. The 2 men dismembered their victims and 
burned their clothes. Later, they used Slim's truck to rob a trading post.

A federal jury convicted Mitchell on a series of charges, including murder. 
Murder falls under the Major Crimes Act, the primary law governing prosecutions 
in Indian Country and through which tribes have the option of accepting or 
rejecting capital punishment.

But, using a different legal maneuver, the U.S. Department of Justice obtained 
a death sentence for Mitchell against the tribe's wishes. The federal 
government based its case for a death sentence on a different offense not 
included in the Major Crimes Act: carjacking resulting in death.

Then-Navajo Nation Attorney General Levon Henry asked federal prosecutors not 
to seek Mitchell's execution. Years later, an account of the legal wrangling 
included in an appeals court judge's opinion stated that Slim's family also 
called on prosecutors not to pursue a death sentence. Paul Charlton, then the 
U.S. attorney for Arizona, agreed. But then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft 
insisted on making the double murder of a grandmother and a little girl a death 
penalty case.

Ashcroft's move stirred judges.

In a stinging dissent last year regarding Mitchell's appeal on several issues, 
Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that 
pursuing the death penalty over the Navajo Nation's objections "reflects a lack 
of sensitivity to the tribe's values and autonomy and demonstrates a lack of 
respect for its status as a sovereign entity."

But in a 2007 opinion, the same court upheld the U.S. Justice Department's 
decision to seek the death penalty.

Judge Pamela Ann Rymer suggested tribes have the same right as states to apply 
the death penalty for certain crimes but do not overrule the federal 
government's jurisdiction in every case.

Mitchell remains on federal death row in Terre Haute, Ind.

It is unclear if federal prosecutors would push again for a death sentence over 
a tribe's objections.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque declined to comment 
for this story, citing the pending prosecution of Ashlynne Mike's suspected 
killer. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice also declined to 
comment.

Asked his stance on the death penalty, Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye 
said in a statement to The New Mexican: "I support the Major Crimes Act as does 
the Navajo Nation Council and many Native American tribes."

Referring to the law through which tribes have a say on the death penalty, 
Begaye signaled that Navajo Nation officials will continue to oppose capital 
punishment.

Begaye seemed to shut down debate over capital punishment in Mike's case, 
noting the charges against her alleged killer fall under the Major Crimes Act, 
presumably exempting him from the death penalty.

Tom Begaye Jr. of Waterflow is accused of offering a ride to Ashlynne and her 
9-year-old brother as they walked home from school May 2. Police charge that 
Begaye steered the children into the desert toward Shiprock Pinnacle, ordered 
Ashlynne out of his van, sexually assaulted her behind a secluded hill and 
bashed her head with a tire iron. Ashlynne's brother escaped without being 
physically injured.

The case shocked New Mexico, and Gov. Martinez, a former district attorney, 
invoked Ashlynne's name in calling on legislators to reinstate capital 
punishment. New Mexico lawmakers and then-Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, 
abolished the death penalty in 2009.

Foster, Mike's mother, launched her online petition last month.

There are always people in Indian Country on both sides of the death penalty 
debate, said Kevin Washburn, former director of the U.S. Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and a professor at The University of New Mexico School of Law.

But tribes generally remain skeptical of capital punishment meted out through 
federal courts, added Washburn, a member of the Chickasaw Nation. Only one 
tribe, the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, has opted in to the federal death 
penalty.

No one from the Sac and Fox Nation has been executed or sentenced to death 
under federal law.

Truman Carter, who served as the tribe's treasurer when it opted in during the 
mid-1990s, said it allows for the potential of equal punishment in a state 
where the death penalty is still handed down for some capital offenses 
committed off the reservation.

"Indian Country should not be a safe haven - or perceived as a safe haven - for 
dangerous defendants," said Carter, who now serves as a prosecutor for several 
tribes across Oklahoma.

Worries that federal prosecutors would disproportionately seek the death 
penalty for American Indians have not proven true, he added.

"It's just a tool in the toolbox for prosecutors," Carter said. "I wish more 
tribes had opted in or would opt in."

Washburn, though, argues that pursuing the death penalty against tribal members 
would exacerbate the disparities Native Americans already encounter in the 
federal courts.

Federal juries deciding criminal cases rarely include Native Americans, 
depriving defendants of their Sixth Amendment right to be judged by their 
peers, he notes.

In addition, Washburn said, federal judges may hold court far from the 
reservations in their jurisdiction.

And around the country, he said, low-income communities populated largely by 
ethnic minorities tend to be more skeptical of the criminal justice system than 
predominantly white and affluent areas, leading to a pervasive mistrust of the 
federal courts in Indian Country.

"The federal government gave us George Armstrong Custer," Washburn said, 
summing up a general skepticism of the U.S. government. "Do you want to trust 
them with the death penalty?"

For Foster, though, circulating her death penalty petition tries to reconcile a 
pride in tradition and sovereignty with the "sea of grief" on the reservation.

"We cannot continue to allow criminals on native land to kill," she wrote. "And 
to have the freedom to live among us."

(source: Santa Fe New Mexican)