[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----CONN., N.C., ALA., MISS.

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 16



CONNECTICUT:

Death penalty ruling may pave way for national abolitionists


A sweeping decision this week by the Connecticut Supreme Court that found the 
death penalty no longer meets society's evolving standards of decency could be 
influential across a nation that is increasingly questioning the practice, 
legal experts said.

Thursday's ruling found capital punishment violates the Connecticut 
constitution, but the justices backed their decision by citing what 
abolitionists say are universal problems with the death penalty, including 
economic disparities in its use, the costs involved with appeals, the inherent 
cruelty involved in lengthy waits for execution, and the risk of executing 
innocent people.

"It reads as a missive to the U.S. Supreme Court," said Kevin Barry, a 
Quinnipiac University law professor and expert on death penalty law. "It is a 
blueprint for our nation's high court to strike down the death penalty 
nationally."

31 states still have capital punishment, but 7 states have eliminated it in the 
past decade, including Nebraska in May and Maryland in 2013, which both passed 
legislation outlawing the death penalty.

Connecticut's abolishment is different because it comes in the form of a court 
ruling, one that found the 2012 state law that banned executions for future 
crimes did not go far enough, experts said. The court found the death penalty 
"no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose."

"This is one more institution saying this is too broken and it can't be fixed, 
and let's be done with it," said Shari Silberstein, executive director of the 
anti-death penalty group Equal Justice USA.

The ruling could also influence courts in states such as Maryland and New 
Mexico, which, like Connecticut, eliminated the death penalty only for future 
crimes, said Robert Blecker, a professor at New York Law School and a proponent 
of the limited use of capital punishment. States including Delaware, Colorado, 
Kansas, New Hampshire and Washington are also considering repealing the death 
penalty only for future crimes, he said.

"My view is that there will never be an execution of anyone who, if they had 
committed the same crime on the day of their execution, would not be subjected 
to the death penalty," said Blecker, author of the book "The Death of 
Punishment." "This ruling backs that up."

The death penalty was widely used in the United States for decades until the 
1960s, when questions about its fairness reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which 
eventually ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972. After states 
reworked their laws, the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty in 1976.

In recent years, the number of death sentences and executions in the U.S. has 
plummeted as juries take advantage of new laws offering life with no chance of 
parole and as prosecutors hesitate to bring capital charges because of the 
cost, especially at the appeals stage. In the past 5 years, executions have 
slowed again while the supply of lethal drugs has dried up as manufacturers, 
responding to activist pressure, have put them off limits for capital 
punishment.

The number of death sentences imposed last year marked a 40-year low in the 
country, said Robert Dunham, executive director of the nonprofit Death Penalty 
Information Center, which tracks information about the use of capital 
punishment in the United States.

There have been recent indications that the U.S. Supreme Court may be preparing 
to take its first broad look at the constitutionality of the death penalty 
since 1976, perhaps as early as this fall.

In June, Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent of an opinion upholding 
Oklahoma's use of a new lethal injection drug, said that circumstances have 
changed drastically over the past 40 years, and that the death penalty may now 
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

"Given these changes, I believe that it is now time to reopen the question," he 
wrote.

One of the main tests the U.S Supreme Court would look at is the nation's 
standards of decency, Barry said. If it follows Connecticut's lead, in may not 
need to find that the majority of states oppose the death penalty, only that 
the trend is heading in an undeniable direction, he said.

But death penalty supporters may also look to Connecticut to back their 
position that executions should remain legal in states where it has public and 
legislative support.

Connecticut's ruling drew harsh criticism from the three dissenting justices 
and legislative Republicans, who accused the court of improperly taking on the 
role of policymakers.

Connecticut Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano noted that multiple lawmakers 
would not have voted to repeal the death penalty in Connecticut if that ban had 
applied to those already on death row.

In her dissent, Connecticut Chief Justice Chase Rogers wrote court ignored the 
most obvious evidence that society still accepts the death penalty.

"The legislature, which represents the people of the state and is the best 
indicator of contemporary societal mores, expressly retained the death penalty 
for crimes committed before the effective date of (the repeal)," she wrote.

(source: Associated Press)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Is N.C. Morally Right to Resume Executions?


Certainly one of the most bitterly fought laws was a New York statute that 
passed June 4, 1888. It substituted the electric chair for the gallows as a 
means of capital punishment. Interestingly, its strongest opponents were public 
utilities that believed the use of electricity in executions would have a 
negative impact on the millions of people, who in those days were still afraid 
of it.

So the validity of the law was attacked unsuccessfully in the courts on the 
basis that electrocution was "cruel and unusual punishment," and, therefore its 
adoption was a violation of the United States Constitution. Two years later, 
assaults on the measure stopped when experiments on animals at the time 
determined death by such was quick and painless.

In the meantime, manufacturers refused to sell all the necessary materials to 
build the electric chair, making it needful for those designing it to have to 
look to a source in Brazil for the equipment and ship it back to America.

These circumstances were somewhat similar to the kind of reasoning employed for 
attacking North Carolina's death penalty in recent years.

Although there has been no legislation to end executions in the Tar Heel state, 
there have been various legal challenges to the state's lethal injection 
protocol. The Racial Justice Act that passed in 2009 and was repealed in 2013 
didn't seek to do away with the death penalty. However, it essentially allowed 
every death row inmate, regardless of race, to appeal their conviction if 
racial bias may have played a role in their sentencing. Moreover, in 2007, the 
North Carolina Medical Board declared physician participation in capital 
punishment cases violated their professional ethics - a decision blocking 
doctors from monitoring executions as required by law.

Such was indicative of the false motives, phony litigation, and other 
illegitimate complications raised by many to essentially end the practice of 
executions in the state.

And it worked. North Carolina has experienced a de facto moratorium on capital 
punishment for nine years. But lawmakers in the state's legislature are now 
saying justice needs to be restored.

Wednesday, July 29th, state legislators passed a bill that basically allows a 
medical professional other than a doctor to monitor an execution and eases the 
restrictions to secure the necessary drugs for an execution, while protecting 
the confidentiality of the manufacturers willing to provide them.

Interestingly, the passage of the bill comes on the heels of a recent 5-4 
decision by the United States Supreme Court that said the state of Oklahoma may 
use the sedative "midazolam" to render inmates unconscious during lethal 
injection. Oklahoma was unable to obtain the barbiturates traditionally used 
because pharmaceutical companies were unwilling to sell them for use in capital 
punishment cases - something else reminiscent of when manufacturers were 
unwilling to provide supplies for the electric chair.

Of course, the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU, as well as other groups in 
the state, vehemently opposed the measure. Still, unwilling to be deterred, 
Rep. Leo Daughtry (R-Johnston), the bill's primary sponsor, was determined to 
bring his colleagues in line with the truth. If lawmakers wanted to take up a 
debate on the death penalty and do away with it that was one thing, but if the 
state has the law it should get back to enforcing it, he said.

Is Daughtry right? Should the state resume executions?

Daughtry and lawmakers who supported the bill were right for a number of 
reasons, but they were mostly right because the death penalty is morally right.

When Noah and his family came out of the ark, God had just destroyed a wicked 
and violent era of human history. Man's new start required instructions that 
would henceforth be for all times. What God said would become the foundation of 
human government: "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from 
every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require 
a reckoning for the life of man. 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall 
his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.'" (Gen. 9:5,6).

The word "shed" in that text is from a Hebrew word that refers to blood being 
spilt in a vicious and unjustified act of homicide. This command of God 
requires that government as the agent of God must require the life of the 
guilty one who raises his hand against the very image of the Almighty.

The apostle Paul spoke of this same law in the New Testament when in Romans 13 
he referred to government's role as "the servant of God, an avenger who carries 
out God's wrath on the wrong-doer." In this same text, the apostle says civil 
government "does not bear the sword in vain." The Greek word for "sword" is the 
same word used in several other verses to speak of an instrument by which 
people are put to death.

The apostle Peter said, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human 
institution, whether it be to the Emperor as supreme, or as governors sent by 
him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good" (I Pet. 
2:13,14). The expression translated "to punish" is the same Greek word Paul 
used for vengeance that belongs to God in Romans 12:19. It's a word from the 
same root that Paul uses to say civil government's responsibility is to be "an 
avenger who carries out God's wrath" (Rom. 13:4).

Opponents of capital punishment will often rail it's barbaric for the state to 
exact vengeance. But would they be more compassionate than even God?

God has ordered the state to be an avenger in his stead. When a person 
purposefully seeks to end another person's life or commits a crime equal 
thereto, the state not only has the right but the duty to take the lives of 
those who willfully violate the sacredness of life. For the state to act 
administratively in honor of God's law is far different than an act of personal 
vengeance, which our Lord prohibits.

Even though a strong argument might be made for capital punishment as a 
deterrent, such reasoning isn't its main purpose. Its primary function is the 
principle of simple justice.

Dr. William H. Baker in "Worthy of Death" has eloquently written: "Retribution 
is properly a satisfactor or according to the ancient figure of justice and her 
scales, a restoration of a disturbed equilibrium. As such it is a proper, 
legitimate and moral concept."

For North Carolina to continue tolerating the delay of justice is the same as 
to deny justice. The state's lawmakers have acted properly in seeking to resume 
executions.

(source: Rev. Mark H. Creech is executive director of the Raleigh-based 
Christian Action League of North Carolina Inc.----Christian Post)






ALABAMA:

Inmate finds life on death row


Mitchell Rutledge, a convicted murderer who was once described as not worth 
killing, has been serving as an inspiration to people in prison and on the 
outside for more than 3 decades.

"To most people the life of a foolish punk like Rutledge does not count for 
much," a reporter for Time magazine wrote in an article on Jan. 24, 1983. "He 
is defective. His death would not be unbearably sad. ... There are guys not 
worth killing. Let Rutledge sit and stew in his 8-ft. by 5-ft. pen in Alabama. 
Forget him." The article also threw out for public consumption Rutledge's IQ -- 
84. The story was written at the time the death penalty was being reinstated in 
the United States. Rutledge was the only death row inmate quoted in the article 
who expressed regret for his actions.

The reporter's callous words prompted a disparate handful of evangelical and 
Catholic Christians around the country to take action and to befriend Rutledge 
and to advocate on his behalf. These disparate advocates included a college 
professor who was also an official with a local Republican party, as well as a 
school teacher and a housewife.

Rutledge's story is told in a riveting book titled "Death on Hold: A Prisoner's 
Desperate Prayer and the Unlikely Family Who Became God's Answer." Nelson Books 
is the publisher. More information is at thomasnelson.com.

Rutledge, who is black, has a life story that is all too common in the United 
States these days. He was born to a single mother who was only 13; he never 
knew his fat her. His mother then had 3 other children with 3 other fathers. He 
began spending more time on the streets. His mother died when he was only 16, 
and he became more enmeshed into a life of crime that took more and more turns 
into dangerous areas, ending with a botched, deadly robbery of a drug courier.

Burton Folsom Jr. and his wife Anita Folsom are credited as the authors (Burton 
is the Republican/college professor). The Folsoms put the book together, but 
Rutledge wrote a good chunk of it because the book is his story, a story of 
poverty, brokenness, loss, bad choices, crime and redemption. Rutledge was 
challenged in his writing because he could only mail 4 pages of paper at a time 
from prison, Burton Folsom said.

For much of his life, Rutledge would not have been able to do that writing, 
because he never learned reading and writing in school. Instead, he taught 
himself to read and write in prison, starting by watching commercials on 
television. He began praying to God for the first time in his life. The Bible 
was his reading material of choice. Sometimes he would ask people to read the 
Bible to him, and with his excellent memory, he would write the Bible's words 
down for practice.

Burton Folsom said that he and his wife were drawn to Rutledge's plight in part 
because he was the only inmate in the Time story who expressed remorse.

Burton Folsom wrote Rutledge a letter, saying he was glad Rutledge had 
apologized for his crime and laying out God's plan for salvation. Rutledge 
wrote back (he barely knew how to read or write at that time), and the Folsoms 
began a 30-plus-year friendship.

The Folsoms, and other pen pals and their relatives, began visiting Rutledge as 
often as they could and testified at 2 hearings in which he attempted to have 
his death sentence commuted to life in prison -- the 2nd time worked.

Rutledge's lawyer throughout his trials was provided free by the Southern 
Poverty Law Center. The lawyer was amazed that political conservatives were so 
interested in his client's case.

"But it's inherent in Christianity and for conservatives to take action," 
Burton Folsom said. "We don't look to the government to take action. We look to 
people to help people, not the government to help people."

Anita Folsom said, "I think the picture of people on the left politically try 
to paint of conservatives is that we don't care about the poor, we don't care 
about the downtrodden. That's the stereotype Mitch's lawyer thought." The 
Folsoms and the lawyer, Dennis Balske, are friends to this day.

The Folsoms said that Rutledge is thrilled that his book can reach other people 
and potentially help them. The convicted murderer who was once illiterate began 
teaching other inmates and leading them in an experimental prison honors dorm. 
He began speaking a message of life to his fellow prisoners. His prison allowed 
at-risk teens to visit the facility, where he did his best to set them 
straight. That led to him filming a public service announcement video that has 
been shown to countless youths in several states, which officials credited with 
lowering the truancy rate. In the book, Rutledge writes of his joy when he 
learned of a teen who said that the video turned his life around; the teen was 
interviewed on the local television news.

The Folsoms said that Rutledge continues to live in prison on a sentence of 
life without parole. They hope that one day the Alabama Legislature would issue 
him a pardon.

"He has indeed been rehabilitated," Burton Folsom said.

Through their interactions with Rutledge, the Folsoms became experts on 
America's prisons and the overcrowding problem. Anita Folsom blames government 
incentives "that destabilized so many families that were in poverty."

Burton Folsom said, "Rehabilitation is a naturalistic concept. It believes man 
without God can help man change for the best. It's true in some cases, maybe. 
But not if you put people in a negative environment and let them hang out with 
others. Mitch has made a serious effort to go against the tide and educate 
himself."

His wife added that one purpose of the book is to remind people that it's very 
easy to overlook inmates, but that Christians are called to visit prisoners and 
minister to them.

"For prisoners, it's vital for them to think someone is interested in them," 
she said.

Anita Folsom directs Hillsdale College's Free Market Forum. Burt Folsom Jr. 
holds the Charles Kline Chair in History and Management at Hillsdale College in 
Michigan. They have a blog at BurtFolsom.com.

(source: Shelbyville Times-Gazette)






MISSISSIPPI:

Mississippi death row inmate files appeal with US high court


The American Bar Association is joining a Mississippi death row inmate's quest 
for a new trial, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the failure of 
Thomas Loden Jr.'s lawyer to search the record for evidence that could have 
persuaded a judge to spare Loden's life.

The ABA argues in briefs that the trial lawyer's work fell below minimum 
constitutional standards for the effective assistance of counsel. The ABA urged 
the Supreme Court to hear Loden's appeal to determine "whether a defendant's 
decision to waive the right to present sentencing evidence should foreclose a 
finding that he was prejudiced by a deficient sentencing investigation."

Loden, now 50, pleaded guilty in 2001 to the slaying of 16-year-old Leesa Gray. 
He was sentenced to death by a judge for capital murder plus 30 years for 
kidnapping and rape.

Gray disappeared June 22, 2000, while on her way home from work as a waitress 
at her family's restaurant in the Dorsey community. She was found dead of 
strangulation the next day in Loden's minivan, authorities said.

Loden argued his attorneys gave him poor legal advice during his Lee County 
trial. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in March.

(source: Associated Press)

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

American Bar Association joins Mississippi death row inmate's bid for new trial


The American Bar Association is joining a Mississippi death row inmate's quest 
for a new trial, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the failure of 
Thomas Loden Jr.'s lawyer to search the record for evidence that could have 
persuaded a judge to spare Loden's life.

The ABA argues in briefs that the trial lawyer's work fell below minimum 
constitutional standards for the effective assistance of counsel. The ABA urged 
the Supreme Court to hear Loden's appeal to determine "whether a defendant's 
decision to waive the right to present sentencing evidence should foreclose a 
finding that he was prejudiced by a deficient sentencing investigation."

Loden, now 50, pleaded guilty in 2001 to the slaying of 16-year-old Leesa Gray. 
He was sentenced to death by a judge for capital murder plus 30 years for 
kidnapping and rape.

Gray disappeared June 22, 2000, while on her way home from work as a waitress 
at her family's restaurant in the Dorsey community. She was found dead of 
strangulation the next day in Loden's minivan, authorities said.

Loden argued his attorneys gave him poor legal advice during his Lee County 
trial. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in March.

Loden filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 29. A response from 
the Mississippi attorney general's office is due Aug. 31.

Loden has previously argued his original defense attorney failed to fully 
investigate his mental condition and background and gave him poor advice that 
led him to plead guilty and waive jury sentencing.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers in Oxford, Mississippi, ruled 
Loden failed to prove his trial attorneys were inadequate.

Biggers sided with the Mississippi Supreme Court's findings that Loden was 
given "the basic tools of an adequate defense," including funding to hire an 
investigator, a full evaluation by the forensic staff at the Mississippi State 
Hospital and the services of an independent psychologist.

Prosecutors said Loden was aware of the proceedings that were taking place in 
the state court and actively participated in a question-and-answer session 
during his guilty plea.

The 5th Circuit held that Loden's arguments were countered by his decision that 
his trial lawyers not question prosecution witnesses or put any evidence at a 
sentencing hearing to help him avoid the death penalty.

But American Bar Association attorneys said in briefs that if the 5th Circuit 
decision is upheld it would tend "to predetermine no-prejudice findings 
precisely when counsel has been the least diligent.

"The more deficient the investigation, the less mitigating evidence will be 
available, and the more likely it is that the defendant will have no viable 
options other than waiver," the ABA said.

(source: Commercial Appeal)