[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARK., COLO., ARIZ., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 13



ARKANSAS:

Arkansas buys lethal injection drugs, aims to end execution hiatus


Arkansas has bought drugs it plans to use for lethal injections, officials said 
on Wednesday, as it looks to end a decade-long hiatus on executions that is the 
longest of any Southern U.S. state.

Arkansas law allows information on the drugs used in executions and the vendors 
supplying them to remain secret.

Local reports said the drugs included midazolam, a sedative death penalty 
opponents had challenged as inappropriate for executions, arguing it cannot 
even achieve the level of unconsciousness required for surgery.

On June 29, the Supreme Court found the drug did not violate the U.S. 
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, a ruling that provoked a 
caustic debate among the justices about the death penalty.

The Arkansas attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, acknowledged through a 
spokesman that the chemicals planned for use in Arkansas were on hand but 
declined further comment. The Arkansas Department of Correction did not return 
a call seeking comment.

8 of the 35 men on Arkansas's death row, 20 of whom are black, have exhausted 
all their appeals, according to Rutledge.

It is the attorney general's responsibility to ask the governor to set 
execution dates, but Judd Deere, Rutledge's press secretary, said she had "no 
timetable to offer on that at this time."

Arkansas has not put to death a condemned inmate in 10 years. Appeals by death 
row prisoners and legal disputes over the constitutionality of drugs and 
procedures in capital cases have idled the Arkansas death chamber since 2005, 
when Eric Nance, 45, was put to death by lethal injection.

Earlier this year, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson signed into law a measure 
giving prison officials the option of using a single large dose of barbiturate 
or a combination of 3 drugs to cause death.

Midazolam has been used in Florida and Oklahoma, where a troubled execution 
last year prompted the Supreme Court challenge.

The drug is also used in Ohio and Arizona, which do not have any executions 
currently planned for the rest of the year, according to the Death Penalty 
Information Center, which monitors U.S. capital punishment.

States with the death penalty have been scrambling to find chemicals for lethal 
injection mixes for the past several years after pharmaceutical companies, 
mostly in Europe, banned sales of drugs previously used in executions for 
ethical reasons.

(source: Reuters)






COLORADO:

Prosecutor in case involving last man executed says he believes Nathan Dunlap 
will be put to death----Bob Grant says death penalty is a deterrent


The man who prosecuted Gary Davis -- the last man executed in Colorado -- says 
the death penalty is a deterrent. "I know Gary Davis won't kill anybody else," 
said former Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant. "I think if there is 1 
person who is thinking about robbing a 7-Eleven, ono who doesn't take a gun 
because they might have to face a death penalty trial, then that's a deterrent. 
I know that happens."

Grant said there are certain murder cases, "about 5 %," that warrant the death 
penalty.

He said Davis was one of them.

The Byers man was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering Virginia May.

He and his wife, Rebecca Fincham, kidnapped May from in front of her children 
and drove her to a deserted field, where Davis raped her and then shot her 14 
times with a rifle.

He was executed after spending just 10 years on death row.

"Gary Davis was executed because he wanted to be executed," Grant said. "He 
went through his 1st round of appeals and then told his lawyers that he didn't 
want anymore."

When asked if it was just a coincidence that 2 death penalty trials were 
underway at the same time this summer in Colorado, Grant replied, "It's unusual 
in the same sense that it's unusual that there are mass murders within 6 months 
of each other, which is what happened in 2012."

12 people were killed and 70 injured during a mass shooting at a movie theater 
on July 20, 2012. 3 months later, 5 people were stabbed to death at Fero's Bar 
and Grill.

When asked about the future of the death penalty in Colorado, Grant said, 
"That's a good question. You can't look at the Holmes (theater shooting) case 
and draw any conclusions about the future of the death penalty because it is 
such an individual case."

He said it was an appropriate case for a jury to decide.

"You had 12 people, 70 injured," he said, "but the mental health issue is 
exactly where the jury landed and where I predicted they would land initially, 
so you can't predict from the Holmes case."

Grant said he'd like to see what the Governor promised years ago: a public 
dialogue about the death penalty.

"Let's find out what the people think," he said. "I don't think the Governor 
wants to know what people think because I believe they think 2 to 1 that the 
death penalty is still appropriate."

When asked about the Nathan Dunlap case, Grant said, "I think Nathan Dunlap 
will eventually die at the hands of the state."

Dunlap was convicted in the 1993 shooting deaths of 4 people at a Chuck E. 
Cheese restaurant in Aurora.

He was sentenced to death in 1996, but Governor John Hickenlooper put a hold on 
the execution for the duration of his term.

"I think the next Governor, or the next, will erase this commutation and let 
the will of the people (the jury and the people of the state of Colorado) be 
carried out," Grant said. "When Hickenlooper is gone, so will Nathan."

Grant said race won't be a factor in the Dexter Lewis case.

Lewis, who is black, was convicted on Monday in the stabbing deaths of five 
people at Fero's Bar and Grill. On Wednesday, jurors determined there were 
several aggravating factors.

Next week, they'll begin weighing mitigating factors.

Some people are questioning whether race will have played a role if Lewis is 
sentenced to death when James Holmes wasn't even though he killed more people.

"The death penalty focuses on the character, background and history of the 
defendant," Grant said. "The character, background and history of Mr. Holmes, 
regardless of race, is extremely different from the character, background and 
history of Mr. Lewis. The jury will make an individualized determination based 
on individual facts, not the 5 (killed) vs. 12 (killed) that has nothing 
whatsoever to do with it."

Grant said that's a qualifying factor, not a deciding factor and "race better 
not have anything to do with it. If it does, any conviction can be overturned."

Grant acknowledged that arguments have been made about the high cost of death 
penalty cases.

"That's a red herring," he said. "Defense attorneys create the costs and then 
defense attorneys whine about the costs."

He said the costs in a regular homicide case are pretty large as well.

"I don't think the incremental costs between the death costs and the life in 
prison costs, if widely known by the people, would be a deciding factor."

Grant told 7NEWS that he understands that Nebraska's legislature did away with 
the death penalty, but he doesn't expect Colorado will follow suit.

"Either we're a representative government or we're not," he said. "If the 
people want the death penalty and 2/3 of the legislature votes to get rid of 
it, what does that say about representative democracy?"

"I think people need to let their legislators know what they feel about the 
death penalty and by God, if they don't think it's right and they don't think 
it's moral, if they think it's time for the death penalty to be abolished, then 
abolish it. But let the people decide, not 1 man in the Governor's Mansion, and 
not the legislature, who's not paying attention to the people."

Grant said he didn't have a crystal ball when it comes to guessing how the 
Lewis case will turn out, but he noted that Denver juries "are noticeably 
reluctant to issue death penalty verdicts."

"The fact of the matter is, it was Denver juries in heinous cases that hung 11 
to 1 on the death penalty question that led to an attempt to go to a 3-judge 
panel," he said.

The Supreme Court later ruled that 3-judge panels were unconstitutional and 
that only juries could decide whether a convict should be put to death.

The former prosecutor said deciding to seek death is "one of the most difficult 
decisions a prosecutor will ever make."

"First, you have to have a beyond a shadow of a doubt case. 2nd, you have to 
have support from the victim's families. 3rd, you have to believe in your heart 
that it's the right thing to do. And 4th, you have to believe that you have the 
evidence to establish guilt and that this guy is a guy that the jury is going 
to say deserves to look the devil in the eye and give them the death penalty."

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

Jury finds aggravating factors, moves on to Phase 2 in trial of Dexter Lewis 
for Fero's Bar murders


Jurors decided Wednesday that aggravating factors were present in 5 murders 
committed by Dexter Lewis in the Fero's Bar and Grill restaurant in Denver 
during October 2012. As a result, the case will move onto the 2nd phase of the 
death penalty decision process next week.

On Monday, Lewis was found guilty on 5 counts of 1st-degree murder after 
deliberation, 5 counts of felony murder, 5 counts of attempted robbery and an 
arson charge. After a day off, jurors returned Wednesday morning to hear 
presentations about the aggravating factors that make the murderer eligible for 
the death penalty.

Jurors deliberated briefly and returned with a unanimous decision confirming 
those aggravating factors before 4 p.m.

Jurors will start to hear presentations in Phase 2 next week, according to Lynn 
Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the Denver District Attorney. In that phase, 
defense attorneys will present mitigating factors in an attempt to convince the 
jury to be lenient with the sentencing.

3 others went to the bar with Lewis on the night of the murders. Brothers 
Joseph and Lynell Hill pleaded guilty under deals with prosecutors. The 4th, 
Demarea Harris, was a confidential federal informant and wasn't charged.

Harris and Lynell Hill said Lewis stabbed all 5 people. Joseph Hill refused to 
testify during Lewis' trial.

Lewis allegedly told his cellmate that he had to kill everyone in the bar 
because they'd seen his face as he killed the 1st victim. Those killed were bar 
owner Young Fero, 63; Daria M. Pohl, 21; Kellene Fallon, 44; Ross Richter, 29; 
and Tereasa Beesley, 45. The Denver Medical Examiner said all 5 victims died of 
multiple stab wounds.

The 5 victims were found when firefighters responded to the fire at the bar. 
Investigators believed the fire was set to cover up the killings.

Investigators said robbery was the motive for the slayings. The suspects got 
away with $170, according to court records.

(source for both: thedenverchannel.com)

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

Dangers of the death penalty edit for Thursday, Aug. 13


The reaction this past week by some of those who had loved ones murdered by 
James Holmes in the Colorado movie theater shootings was predictable and 
heartbreaking.

Holmes was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for the 2012 
shootings that left 12 dead and 70 wounded. He was spared lethal injection when 
the jury couldn't unanimously agree to have him put to death.

According to a New York Times story, 1 man who lost a 6-year-old granddaughter 
said he suspected that the jury had been infiltrated by a death penalty 
opponent.

More likely, those on the jury who didn't want Holmes put to death made their 
decision based on the fact that Holmes is mentally ill and thus not entirely 
responsible for what he did.

For a number of reasons, we agree with the jury's decision. The 1st is to state 
the obvious. Killing Holmes won't bring anyone back. And because of that, any 
sense of justice that comes with killing him will become increasingly 
meaningless as the years go by.

Then there's Holmes' mental illness. When a person is not responsible for their 
actions, it seems beyond cruel to put them to death. He's dangerous and needs 
to be behind bars for the rest of his life. But kill him? No.

This case as well as any other demonstrates the folly of having a death 
penalty. If the statute were not on the books, there might not have even been a 
trial. For sure, the proceedings would not have dragged out for 3 years. And if 
he'd been sentenced to death, appeals could have gone years longer and cost 
millions more.

Part of what these families need is to put this behind them as much as 
possible, as quickly as possible. A death sentence accomplishes just the 
opposite. It keeps reopening the wound.

But more importantly, without a death penalty, the families would not have had 
their hopes raised by the prospect that Holmes would be put to death, only to 
have that yanked from under them.

Getting rid of the death penalty doesn't change anything that's happened, 
anymore than putting Holmes to death does. But at least without it, the healing 
can start much quicker.

(source: Salina Journal)






ARIZONA:

Jurors mull death penalty for cop killer


A jury is deciding whether a convicted cop killer will be put to death.

Those same jurors last month convicted Danny Martinez of murdering Phoenix 
Police Officer Travis Murphy in 2010.

The defense team is trying to humanize Martinez in an attempt to convince the 
jury to sentence him to natural life and avoid the death penalty.

Their 1st witness during the sentencing phase, which began Wednesday, was 
Martinez's 5th-grade teacher.

Maria Figueroa taught Martinez close to 20 years ago at a Tucson elementary 
school. She testified that even though she's taught hundreds of kids over the 
years, she remembers Martinez because he was one of 2 students who participated 
in a reading program she designed as part of her master's degree. She said 
Martinez did not have disciplinary problems, was a good student, and improved 
his reading skills significantly during his 5th-grade year.

"He became intrinsically motivated," she said. "At the beginning, I would 
reward them with stickers and paper clips. Later on, I didn't have to do that 
anymore. He was intrinsically motivated to do his work and he genuinely wanted 
to succeed,"

The prosecution pointed out that Figueroa never had contact with Martinez after 
that year.

Jurors also are expected to hear other mitigating factors in an attempt to 
spare Martinez's life, including records about his good behavior in prison so 
far and his troubled upbringing.

(source: KPHO news)






USA:

Experts: No such thing as 'humane' execution


Throughout the history of capital punishment in America, states have reviewed 
and revised execution methods in the interest of finding a more "humane" 
option.

New York led the charge in the 1880s to trade the hangman's noose for the 
electric chair based on a legislative commission's finding that electrocution 
was "the most humane and practical method known to modern science," and other 
states followed its lead. In 1921, Nevada adopted a new method -- lethal gas -- 
after concluding it was "the most humane manner known to modern science." And 
other states followed suit.

Though some states kept the firing squad and hanging, electrocution remained 
the predominant method of state execution for much of the 20th century. After 
the court upheld capital punishment in 1976, lethal injection was eventually 
adopted in most states, yet again, in an effort to find a more "humane" way to 
carry out death sentences.

Because some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, the court has 
held time and again "that the Constitution does not require the avoidance of 
all risk of pain," Alito wrote.

"Holding that the Eighth Amendment demands the elimination of essentially all 
risk of pain would effectively outlaw the death penalty altogether."

On that point alone, doctors and death penalty opponents might agree with 
Alito. As many opponents of capital punishment see it, the term "humane 
execution" is an oxymoron, something that cannot be achieved.

"Every time someone introduces a new method of execution, they make the same 
argument: 'Trust me. It will be quick. It will be painless. It is the most 
humane alternative,'" said Robert Dunham, director of the Death Penalty 
Information Center.

"They have a political or commercial interest in the outcome. And they haven't 
done any real medical or scientific research to back up their claims. And in 
every instance, sooner or later, something they didn't anticipate goes wrong."

A substantial portion of the history of death penalty challenges has circled 
around the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition 
of "cruel and unusual punishments." Exactly what that means has been debated 
for as long as capital punishment has existed.

A conflict of interest

It may be medically possible to mitigate pain, but it's impossible to guarantee 
that any form of execution will be quick and painless, according to doctors who 
spoke with CNN on the issue.

Others refused to comment on the topic, given the profession's stance against 
capital punishment as anathema to its life-preserving mission.

"From a technical point of view, yes, it's possible to make an execution quick 
and as painless as possible, if that's what you're trained to do," said medical 
ethicist Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, associate director of the University of 
Chicago's MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics.

>From an ethical perspective, however, "it is always immoral and inhumane to 
participate in an execution, even if it's done painlessly," he said. "Our job 
is to be life-affirming, and participating in an execution is inconsistent with 
that mission because it ends up making us agents of the state in killing 
people."

Lethal injection in particular is problematic because it relies on medical 
technology -- syringes, IV poles, finding intravenous access -- even though 
it's not a medical procedure, said Dr. Marc Stern, who served as medical 
director for Washington State's Department of Corrections from 2006 to 2008. 
States devise their own protocol absent the requisite research, peer review and 
discussion typically required in the scientific community for approving medical 
procedures.

"Unless it's an open medical procedure subject to all the checks and balances 
in medical science you're going to have botched executions," he said.

What's left is an "impersonation" of medicine that would be considered criminal 
in any other setting, said Dr. Joel B. Zivot, assistant professor of 
anesthesiology and surgery with Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

Unlike in physician-assisted suicide, which is legal in four U.S. states and 
has the backing of a controlling legal authority, there is no uniform policy of 
medical oversight and no guarantee that licensed medical professionals will be 
involved in carrying out death sentences, Zivot said. Most critically, perhaps, 
is the absence of free will.

Each method comes with its own set of risks, Zivot said. But lethal injection 
does the best job of creating the "illusion" of a peaceful execution by 
rendering the inmate unconscious with a sedative before delivering the drugs 
that paralyze and stop the heart.

"Since we cannot ask the person now dead if the method was cruel or painless, 
the only way to tell is based on the way it appears to observers," Zivot said.

"If we took away the sedative I expect we would see the real face of execution, 
the consequence of paralysis and suffocation, and I imagine we would observe 
that experience to be cruel."

Is there a doctor in the big house?

The Society of Correctional Physicians, which represents medical professionals 
working in prisons, affirms the American Medical Association's opinion that 
physicians should not be participants in legally authorized executions.

Although physicians in correctional medicine serve the facilities in which they 
work, "participation in any aspect of implementation of the death penalty does 
not increase the safety or security of the institution," the group's position 
statement says.

"Physicians, while possessing special expertise in the use of medications and 
knowledge of the human body, should not utilize this skill and knowledge in 
assisting in the killing of human beings," the statement says. "Such 
participation or supervision at any level is not appropriate to our 
professional role."

Participation can include administering drugs as part of the execution 
protocol, monitoring vital signs or, in the case of lethal injection, starting 
intravenous lines as a port for a lethal injection device. It does not include 
certifying death after the condemned has been declared dead.

However, the position statement is a "guideline" that physicians can point to 
if they feel pressured by their employers to participate in executions. It's 
not a mandate; the decision to participate ultimately rests with the 
individual.

Why some physicians take part

A 2006 article in the New England Journal of Medicine addressed why some 
physicians participate in executions. Four physicians and a nurse, speaking 
under the condition of anonymity, said they saw it as an extension of their 
obligation to patients to ensure the process went as smoothly as possible.

"It was my responsibility to make sure that everything be done in a way that 
was professional and respectful to the inmate as a human being," a nurse said. 
"If this is to be done correctly, if it is to be done at all, then I am the 
person to do it."

Otherwise, thanks to laws limiting public disclosure of the people and 
processes involved, it's hard to know for sure how often licensed medical staff 
participates in executions, said Stern.

It leaves medical professionals deciding between staying true to their ethical 
obligations and keeping their job, as Stern knows firsthand.

Stern was responsible for all health care services in the state's correctional 
facilities in 2008, when he learned that drugs for a scheduled execution were 
acquired through the penitentiary without his permission. He asked the 
department to return the chemicals to the pharmacy to avoid implicating him or 
his staff in the execution.

When the department refused, Stern said, he resigned.

"My purpose was not to stop the execution but to remove myself and my staff 
from involvement," he said. "The only way to honor my ethical obligation was to 
resign."

And still, executions continue in the United States, often with the 
participation of licensed medical staff, as the death of Oklahoma inmate 
Clayton Lockett revealed.

'Procedural disaster'

Lockett's execution, the state's first using the sedative midazolam in its 
3-drug protocol, inspired the Eighth Amendment claim the Supreme Court decided 
in June. It turned out to be a "procedural disaster," in the words of the Tenth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting the state to revise its safety protocol.

A review of the execution determined that the team, which included a doctor and 
paramedic, failed to properly establish intravenous access to Lockett's 
cardiovascular system, causing the IV fluid to leak into tissue rather then 
enter his blood stream.

After the team declared Lockett unconscious from the midazolam, it proceeded 
with the injection of the vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride. Shortly 
after the injection of the potassium chloride, Lockett began to move and speak. 
Witnesses reported Lockett cursing and moaning, "the drugs aren't working."

The team stopped the potassium chloride injection and Lockett was pronounced 
dead about 43 minutes after the midazolam was first injected.

The execution caused Oklahoma to implement new safety precautions as part of 
its lethal injection protocol. When Oklahoma executed Lockett, its protocol 
called for the administration of 100 milligrams of midazolam, as compared to 
the 500 milligrams that are currently required. It also prompted Oklahoma to 
implement new safety precautions as part of its lethal injection protocol.

The outcome prompted three Oklahoma inmates to challenge the state's use of 
midazolam in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 
ruling, the justices found that the prisoners failed to show that using 
midazolam creates a risk of severe pain, or that the risk is substantially 
greater compared to known and available alternatives.

Midazolam, a benzodiazepine similar to Valium and Xanax, is the latest 
substitute to be used in place of fast-acting barbiturates sodium thiopental 
and pentobarbital, which are becoming increasingly scarce as drug companies 
refuse to provide them for use in capital punishment.

Oklahoma even has a backup, just in case. While the Supreme Court case was 
pending, Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill that would allow the state to perform 
executions with nitrogen gas if lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional or 
becomes unavailable.

While the medical community has voiced concerns about the method, at least one 
group thinks the Sooner State might be onto something.

Philip Nitschke, director of right-to-die group, Exit International, said the 
increasing difficulty in obtaining pentobarbital has prompted him to consider 
gas as an alternative. He is currently working on a self-activated "destiny 
machine" that will deliver a combination of nitrogen and carbon monoxide 
through nasal prongs to instigate hypoxia.

The difference between his machine and Oklahoma's method? Free will, he said.

"I suspect there will still be horror stories," he said. "You still have to 
approach someone who doesn't want to die."

There are no professional executioners

Even if you take out the emotional or philosophical questions about capital 
punishment, the potential for operator error remains, said Fordham University 
School of Law Professor Deborah W. Denno.

Just because physicians, nurses and licensed medical staff participate directly 
in lethal injection by finding intravenous access or administering the drugs, 
there's still a chance something can go wrong, especially outside a clinical 
setting. If they are not involved at all, the potential for error increases, 
said Denno, one the nation's foremost death penalty experts.

The same goes for electrocutions, hangings, firing squads, even the guillotine, 
she said. Unless there's an electrical engineer, a hangman, a marksman or a 
trained guillotine operator running the show, the margin of error increases, 
Denno said.

"This has always been the problem throughout history: the people performing the 
executions," she said. "Why? We don't train people to be executioners." The 
closest thing America has to trained executioners are shooters or marksmen, 
theoretically making a firing squad the best option for successful outcomes, 
she said.

But who wants to witness a firing squad? "People are horrified by firing squads 
because they look so bad, or they get associated with authoritarian regimes," 
she said. "Utah is the only [state] that has it and they've been mocked 
endlessly each time."

Guillotines are subject to the same perception problems. "When there's an ISIS 
beheading, no one ever says 'at least they didn't suffer,'" said Austin Sarat, 
professor of jurisprudence and political science and associate dean of faculty 
at Amherst College.

Sarat analyzed 8,776 executions performed in the United States between 1900 and 
2010 for his book, "Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death 
Penalty." He came up with a botched rate of 3.15%, or 276 executions.

The method with the highest rate of error based on his research? Lethal 
injection, he said. The lowest? The electric chair.

"The legitimacy of the death penalty is sustained by the illusive search for 
painless executions," he said. "We cannot be relied on to deliver executions 
which impose no more than pain than is necessary, and we certainly can't be 
relied on to impose executions that are compatible with contemporary standards 
of decency."

(source: CNN)

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

Why does US maintain its death penalty?


The death penalty has been slowly losing favor. It is completely banned by the 
European Union States and in most countries. The U.S., however, still retains 
its use even though its advocacy has been slowly dwindling. In 2007, the United 
Nations declared a universal ban on capital punishment.

With the recent uptick in mass killings, coupled with our own Aurora theater 
shootings, the death penalty is in the news again. The salient question 
becomes: would executions cause a reduction in murder rate and serve as a 
deterrent? Or is it simply serving as retribution, justice and closure for 
victim(s), and pay back in kind for murder?

While the death sentence is rarely given, and guilt has been secured in most, 
there have been documented cases where people have been innocently put to death 
on false or coerced testimony. Many such cases exist in the U.S., and many on 
death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence since 1992 (according to pieces 
in Scientific American and the Innocence Project. So called eye witnesses have 
not always been reliable. Should we then, as a moral, ethical nation, not err 
on behalf of preserving life just in case, by instituting a less irrevocable 
punishment, like life without parole?

In the past, societies accepted 3 categories of legal killings: self-defense, 
just war and state executions. Today, only self-defense is universally accepted 
as legitimate and moral. More and more, religious entities are having concerns 
finding situations or scenarios that justly merit wars. While Thomas Aquinas, a 
renowned church leader, approved of capital punishment, modern day Catholic 
hierarchy, in the main, disapproves of it. So do some other religions. Others 
leave it completely up to the state. But if it were wrong for one to kill, why 
is it right for the state to willfully do? Is this really done for the greater 
good?

Revenge, retribution and equal punishment appear to some as just reasons for 
executions. You took a life; you must forfeit yours. This is the justice the 
aggrieved seek and deserve. This is what comes the closest to giving some 
semblance of justice and closure. Such family grief is so intense that one can 
truly understand why they would truly wish to annihilate the perpetrator 
themselves. This is precisely why the state as an impartial observer, arbiter, 
needs to step in when justice is meted out. Life imprisonment can be just as 
harsh for some as a lingering death sentence. Additionally, it also offers a 
chance on both sides for forgiveness, rehabilitation, compassion and 
redemption.

Do the data support capital punishment as an effective deterrent against 
murder? Comparison of homicide rates where the death penalty has been abolished 
with retentionist states yields no evidence of the deterrent power of the death 
penalty. Nearly 90 % of the U.S. top criminologists do not believe the death 
penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to the Journal of Criminal 
Law and Criminology, in 2009.

It has been shown that the death penalty is applied selectively. Blacks, 
Hispanics, poor people and people with diminished mental capacity are more apt 
to be executed than white suburbanites, or wealthy folks (Amnesty 
International). Good trial lawyers are not cheap, and the poor are not likely 
to hire them.

(source: Opinion; Rudy Bowman lives in Fort Collins----Colorodoan.com)