[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., KAN., NEB., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 16



OKLAHOMA:

Death penalty is crown jewel of retributive justice system


Crown jewel

Regarding "Pending execution drawing concern from out of state" (Our Views, 
Aug. 11): I'm an ordained minister of a Disciples of Christ congregation in 
Edmond and a practicing attorney. I also am a member of the board of the 
Oklahoma Coalition Against the Death Penalty. I object to the death penalty on 
moral and pragmatic grounds. The death penalty is the crown jewel of the 
retributive justice system. The Sermon on the Mount, which should have more 
authority for Christians than the Ten Commandments, does away with an eye for 
an eye. Violence begets violence. The fundamental purpose of the death penalty 
is retribution. Life without the possibility of parole also is retributive.

People who commit violent crimes should be separated from society but they 
shouldn't be executed. They should be released when they no longer present a 
threat of violence to the community. In addition, retribution is ineffective in 
changing behavior. Restorative justice is a more effective approach. The courts 
have interpreted the Bill of Rights as establishing the principle that it's so 
important to keep the government from wrongfully using its power of coercion 
that it's better to let a guilty person go if the government overreached. The 
government overreaches when it provides inadequately paid public defenders as 
counsel for criminal defendants. The governor should stay Richard Glossip's 
execution so the Supreme Court can hear an appeal on the constitutionality of 
the death penalty.

Don Heath, Edmond

(source: Letter to the Editor, Oklahoman)

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

Galesburg native scheduled for execution Sept. 16 grasps for hope


If the state of Oklahoma gets its way, Richard Glossip has 1 month to live.

The Galesburg native is scheduled for execution on Sept. 16 for the murder of 
Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese. One of the many problems with the 
case, however, is the proven fact that Glossip didn't do it.

Death penalty opponent Sister Helen Prejean, Glossip's spiritual advisor and 
author of "Dead Man Walking," has repeatedly defended the death row inmate. 
Susan Sarandon, who played Prejean in the movie adaption of "Dead Man Walking," 
called Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin a "horrible person" for allowing Glossip's 
execution to continue.

In court, motel maintenance man Justin Sneed admitted to entering room 102 of 
the Oklahoma City Best Budget Inn during the morning hours of Jan. 7, 1997, and 
bludgeoning Van Treese to death with a baseball bat.

While in police custody, Sneed implicated Glossip, who worked at the motel 
under Van Treese, by insisting the murder was a paid hit. Sneed said Glossip 
offered to pay $10,000 for the killing - an amount that changed several times 
depending on the testimony.

Ultimately, it was the word of Sneed that landed Glossip on death row. For his 
testimony, Sneed was sentenced to life in prison and Glossip is days away from 
death.

"They're gonna try to kill me," Glossip told The Register-Mail from the 
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, "and they may succeed."

The death row inmate was born at Galesburg Cottage Hospital in 1963 to Heron 
and Sally Glossip. By the time he moved out of his parents' home at the age of 
14, Richard was 1 of 16 siblings in the Glossip home.

2 years later, he married Jackie Hodge and had 2 children in Galesburg. He went 
on to marry Missy King and have 2 more children before leaving Illinois and 
traveling from Iowa to Nebraska and finally ending up in Oklahoma.

It's no surprise he still has relatives in town. Before he left Galesburg about 
24 years ago, Glossip managed a downtown Dominos.

"I remember everything about Galesburg, it was my home," Glossip said. "I could 
drive that town blindfolded."

He was surprised to hear about the Main and Seminary-Kellogg street overpasses, 
remarking on how that would have made pizza deliveries easier.

At times, his hometown almost seemed to be taunting him. Shortly after Glossip 
was incarcerated in Oklahoma, he was browsing through a catalog on what he 
could do for a hobby craft. The craft supplies were distributed from Dick Blick 
Art Materials in Galesburg.

"Everyone down here in the prison was ordering from my hometown," Glossip said 
jovially.

His nieces Amanda and Felicia Glossip, both living in Galesburg, have expressed 
their belief that their "uncle Ricky" is innocent. In an interview last month, 
Felicia Glossip told The Register-Mail that continual setbacks had her losing 
hope.

Glossip's trial began in 1997 and resulted in a conviction in 1998. That trial 
was thrown out due to incompetence on the part of Glossip's public defender. 
His 2nd trial, held in 2004, ended the same way.

Glossip was quick to point out neither instance made use of the video evidence 
suggesting officers had encouraged Sneed to implicate Glossip, uncovered by Sky 
News. He also described a clemency letter written by Sneed's daughter, O'Ryan 
Justine Sneed, which painted Glossip as "an innocent man sitting on death row."

"For a couple of years now, my father has been talking to me about recanting 
his original testimony," the letter read, "but has been afraid to act upon it, 
in fear of being charged with the death penalty and not be here for his 
children."

The letter further stated Sneed told police what he had to in order to avoid 
being on death row, feeling "backed into a corner"

"I am sure that Mr. Glossip did not do what my father originally said, that he 
did not hire my father to kill Mr. Van Treese, and he doesn't deserve to die 
over my father's actions," the letter continued, concluding with the words: "1 
innocent life has already been taken by my father's actions. A 2nd one doesn't 
deserve to be taken as well."

The letter, which was uncovered long after both trials, was not considered as 
evidence.

Hope at last showed itself in January when the United States Supreme Court 
stayed Glossip's execution 1 day ahead of his scheduled death date. The 
postponement allowed justices to review details around last April's botched 
lethal injection of Oklahoma inmate Clayton Lockett.

Lockett, convicted of murder rape and kidnapping in 2000, was administered a 
3-part execution cocktail that included the controversial drug midazolam. He 
writhed for more than 40 minutes before the execution was aborted and Lockett 
died of a heart attack.

On June 29, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that midazolam did not 
violate inmates' rights prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Glossip's 
execution was back on.

"I try not to let it bother me," Glossip said. "The one thing about it is, no 
matter what they use, no matter what method they use, the fact is they're gonna 
kill an innocent man. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some concern 
about what happened to Lockett, because I do. I just hope it doesn't come to 
that."

He hasn't given up. Glossip encourages people to visit richardeglossip.com to 
learn more about his story and follow Prejean's Facebook page for updates. 
Petitions to save Glossip's life have nearly 150,000 supporters across 
change.org and moveon.org.

"Innocent people are dying in this country," Glossip said. "Even if I have to 
be executed, I want my death to mean something. I want it to stop this from 
happening to anybody else."

(source: Register-Mail)

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

Foes of death penalty continue to advocate for Glossip's life


This week, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin said the execution of Richard Glossip, 
convicted in the 'murder-for-hire' killing of Barry Van Treese in 1997, should 
go forward.

Responding to the governor's statement, leaders of the Oklahoma Coalition to 
Abolish the Death Penalty (OK-CADP) have renewed their pleas for Glossip's 
life. His execution has been scheduled for September 16.

Connie Johnson, OK-CADP chair said, "I am shocked and disappointed that the 
governor of Oklahoma is unwilling to even consider that we may have Richard 
Glossip's execution wrong. It is disheartening that neither she nor the Pardon 
& Parole Board is willing to be educated specifically about what's wrong. Gov. 
Mary Fallin's seemingly boastful statement proclaiming that 'Richard Glossip 
was sentenced to death by 2 juries and should therefore be held accountable and 
executed for his crimes' dismisses recent reports about the 150 exonerations in 
cases where a jury determined guilt.

"If there is any accountability to be had, there's certainly enough to go 
around. Citizens must hold the state of Oklahoma accountable before we murder a 
man who is possibly innocent. The question that begs an answer is, "Can the 
state reverse a mistake?" Or will we just cavalierly say, 'Oh well.'

"Justin Sneed's actions, that resulted in the brutal murder of Barry Van 
Treese, a husband and a father of 7 children, will now lead to the state's 
brutal murder of Richard Glossip, another husband and father. Sneed's own 
daughter wrote that he bargained with the police and lied on Richard Glossip in 
order to avoid the death penalty himself.

The Governor's version of the incidents that led to Barry Van Treese's murder 
simply restates faulty information that convicted Richard Glossip in the first 
place. Advocates are asking the Governor and the Pardon and Parole Board for 
both a procedural and factual review of the case. ...

"The governor of Oklahoma may not have the authority to grant any inmate 
clemency without a recommendation from the Pardon and Parole Board but, in the 
case of Richard Glossip, she does have an opportunity to ensure mercy and 
compassion by not causing the state of Oklahoma to kill an innocent man."

OK-CADP spokesperson Rev. Adam Leathers said, "We at the Oklahoma Coalition to 
Abolish the Death Penalty are saddened at Governor Fallin's recent press 
release. ... Even for those who affirm the death penalty, Mr. Glossip's case 
should cause great concern to the citizens of Oklahoma.

"We hope and pray that the Spirit will move within her heart and she will 
reconsider. More importantly, we ask the people of Oklahoma this: If one 
person, who had his life to gain from it, claimed you committed a crime and 
because of that claim, you were facing your own death in a little over a month 
from now ... what would you expect from your government? 60 days is a small 
price to pay to avoid killing an innocent man."

Legal team member Don Knight said, "We are disappointed by Governor Fallin's 
premature statement released to the press ... that she will not consider 
granting a stay of Mr. Glossip's execution that is currently scheduled for 
September 16.

"It is indisputable, even by the governor's office, that the only evidence 
against Mr. Glossip was the testimony of Justin Sneed, who admitted to killing 
Mr. Van Treese, lied about it to police when he was questioned, and gave his 
testimony only to save himself from the death penalty.

"The 2 trials in this case proved only that this case is rife with factual 
problems. No one should be put to death based only upon the word of a convicted 
murderer. We implore those who know about the case, or who know Mr. Sneed, to 
come forward and help us with the information that we need to file a new 
petition.

"If you have any such information, please call Don Knight at 303-797-1645. It 
is our hope that Governor Fallin will reconsider and agree to meet with us 
prior to the date of the scheduled execution.

"No one wants an innocent man to be executed. We will continue to do all we can 
to stop this terrible miscarriage of Justice."

(source: city-sentinel.com)






KANSAS:

Murder trial to begin in Kansas Jewish site shootings


A capital murder trial will begin this week for a Missouri man who claims he 
was morally obligated to kill 3 people last year outside 2 suburban Kansas City 
Jewish sites.

Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., a 74-year-old avowed white supremacist, has publicly 
acknowledged firing the shots that killed 69-year-old William Corporon; his 
14-year-old grandson, Reat Griffin Underwood; and 53-year-old Terri LaManno on 
April 13, 2014, in Johnson County, Kansas. He said he was trying to target 
Jewish people; he didn't know none of the victims was Jewish.

Attorneys expect jury selection, which starts Monday, to take a week and the 
rest of the trial to last 3 to 4 weeks, court administrator Katherine Stocks 
said.

Already, the pre-trial hearings for the 74-year-old have been eventful, with a 
judge warning that Miller's frequent outbursts could result in a mistrial if 
they happen in front of jurors.

Facing a possible death sentence, Miller fired his three court-appointed 
attorneys in May because he said he didn't trust them and wanted to speak for 
himself. Johnson County Judge Thomas Kelly Ryan allowed it, but ordered those 
lawyers to be stand-by counsel in case Miller is removed from the courtroom. 
During several lengthy hearings since, Miller has interrupted the judge and 
made disparaging comments about the court or prosecutors.

The judge also rejected Miller's "compelling necessity" defense, in which the 
Aurora, Missouri, man planned to argue that Jewish people were taking over the 
country and it was his moral duty to stop it.

Ryan compared that to a defense put forth by Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion 
activist who is serving a life prison sentence for killing abortion provider 
George Tiller at a Wichita, Kansas, church in May 2009. Roeder's attorneys 
argued that he felt it was necessary to kill Tiller in order to save unborn 
babies, an argument the Kansas Supreme Court rejected late last year.

Also, Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe twice turned down offers from 
Miller to plead guilty to 1st-degree murder if the death penalty were taken off 
the table. Howe is under a gag order and declined to say why he didn't accept 
Miller's plea deal in a state that hasn't executed anyone in 50 years.

Miller, who has chronic emphysema, has told The Associated Press and said in 
court that he isn't afraid of the death penalty and wanted to plead guilty to 
avoid a lengthy trial - as long as he got a chance to state in court why he 
killed the 3 victims.

(source: thenewstribune.com)






NEBRASKA:

Governor Pete Ricketts on Death Penalty


The death penalty was repealed back in may, but ever since then Governor 
Ricketts has been pushing to get a citizen vote for the death penalty. A 
petition is going around to put the issue on the ballet so that Nebraskans can 
decide to bring back the death penalty or keep it away. Governor Ricketts says 
it's not about wanting to kill people, it's about trying to protect others.

"We need to make sure that we've got the right policy in place to be able to 
protect ourselves and to be able to protect law enforcement." Ricketts said. 
"Just think about our corrections officers going to our prisons every day and 
deal with dangerous criminals. We need a sanction beyond just life in prison to 
be able to make sure we keep them safe."

After the governor spoke with the Republicans he put his signature on the 
petition for the death penalty himself.

(source: KNOP news)






USA:

Arguments against death penalty


Last week, we reviewed the leading arguments in favor of the death penalty. 
This week, let's shift gears and explore the leading arguments against capital 
punishment, as presented on the website ProCon.org.

The leading moral question should not be whether people convicted of violent 
crimes deserve to be killed. Rather, the question is whether federal and state 
governments of civilized societies deserve to have the authority to kill a 
convicted person. The sixth commandment says "thou shall not kill." The 
commandment doesn't come with any exceptions. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself and 
therefore violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual 
punishment. As Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan wrote in his 1976 
dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Georgia, "Death is ... an unusually severe 
punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in it enormity. ... The 
fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats 
members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and 
discarded."

There is no credible evidence that the threat of capital punishment deters 
serious criminal behavior more than does the threat of a life sentence without 
parole. In fact, social science has thoroughly undermined this theory.

Just look at the facts. States that have the death penalty do not have 
significantly lower serious crime or murder rates. Also, those states that have 
abolished the death penalty show no significant increase in serious crime or 
murders.

Retribution is simply another form of revenge and is unacceptable. The desire 
for revenge is one of the lowest human emotions. Although the desire to seek 
revenge is understandable under some circumstances, killing the criminal is not 
a rational response to the situation.

Killing the killer simply continues the cycle of violence and ultimately 
destroys the avenger and the offender. Violence leads to more violence. It 
contaminates and undermines good will, an essential quality to human progress 
and understanding.

Our criminal justice system is seriously flawed and too many people have been 
wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. In fact, since 1976, over 150 
people have been freed from death row because they were later proven innocent. 
That equates to 1 innocent person for every 7 people who are executed.

In 2000, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold stated "It is a central pillar of our 
criminal justice system that it is better that many guilty people go free than 
one innocent should suffer. ... Let us pause to be certain we do not kill a 
single innocent person. This is really not too much to ask for a civilized 
society."

If for no other reason, capital punishment should be abolished because it is 
not cost-effective. For the following reasons, the death penalty is up to 6 
times more expensive to administer than is a life sentence without the 
possibility of parole for the following reasons: 1st, pursuing a death sentence 
involves more pre-trial time than other trials. 2nd, if a person is convicted 
of a capital crime, a 2nd trial is needed to determine if the death penalty is 
appropriate. 3rd, because there are 2 trials, more attorneys are involved. 4th, 
more experts will be required - 1 for the regular trial and 1 for the penalty 
phase. 5th, many defendants sit on death row for years while they pursue their 
appeals. The higher security required for their incarceration means greater 
housing expense.

The current method of administering the death penalty is biased against 
minorities. Although African Americans make up 13 % of the nation's population, 
nearly 50 % of those on death row are African Americans. These statistics 
clearly indicate that the American justice system is seriously flawed and no 
further death sentences at either the state or federal level should be 
permitted unless and until the racial bias in our legal system is eliminated.

The American justice system unfairly discriminates against the poor. A poor 
person is much more likely to receive a death sentence than a wealthy person. 
In addition, rich defendants can hire the best attorneys while poor defendants 
must rely on court-appointed attorneys who frequently aren't adequately 
trained. There can't be equal justice under the law when there is such great 
disparity in the legal treatment, and the quality of representation, between 
the poor and the rich.

Next week, we''ll conclude this series on capital punishment with a close look 
at Guam's unique experiences with the death penalty.

(source: Bill Pesch is a family law attorney with the Guam Family Law Office in 
Hagatna----Pacific Daily News)

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

There's no evidence that death penalty is a deterrent against crime


Capital punishment is such a costly, controversial, and divisive issue that, 
unless it succeeds in saving lives, it clearly should be abolished - as it 
already has been in the European Union and in 101 countries around the world 
But does the death penalty save lives? Let's consider the relevant factors and 
the evidence.

Some feel the question of whether the death penalty deters can be argued as a 
matter of theory: capital punishment is worse than other penalties therefore it 
must lead to fewer killings. This contention misses much of the complexity of 
the modern death penalty.

1st, theory can't tell us whether the spectacle of state-sanctioned killings 
operates to unhinge marginal minds into thinking that their own grievances 
merit similar forms of retribution that they then try to inflict on their own. 
Even if some other criminals were deterred by the death penalty, one must ask 
whether these avoided crimes would be more than offset by the possible 
brutalisation effect.

2nd, operating a death penalty regime - at least in the United States - has 
been incredibly costly, as each case resulting in a death sentence will spend 
years in various types of legal appeals, eating up the valuable time of judges, 
prosecutors, and defence lawyers, overwhelmingly at government expense.

The best research on the issue suggests that life imprisonment is a less costly 
penalty, since locking someone up is far less expensive than both locking them 
up and paying a team of lawyers for many years - often decades - to debate 
whether a sentence of death should be imposed. In California, for example, 
execution is only the 3rd leading cause of death for those on death row (behind 
old age and suicide).

Some might contend that the lengthy appeals are a needless burden that should 
be jettisoned so that the penalty is administered more cheaply and quickly, but 
the large number of exonerations of those on death row (155 including 21 by DNA 
evidence at last count) underscores the danger of any effort to short circuit 
the judicial process. Killing a few innocent defendants is an unavoidable 
consequence of having a capital regime - so unless there is some clear evidence 
of deterrence, it is hard to argue positively for the death penalty.

Lack of evidence

So what is the evidence on deterrence? Here the answer is clear: there is not 
the slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the 
rate of homicide. Whether one compares the similar movements of homicide in 
Canada and the US when only the latter restored the death penalty, or in 
American states that have abolished it versus those that retain it, or in Hong 
Kong and Singapore (the 1st abolishing the death penalty in the mid-1990s and 
the 2nd greatly increasing its usage at the same), there is no detectable 
effect of capital punishment on crime. The best econometric studies reach the 
same conclusion.

A number of studies - all of which, unfortunately, are only available via 
subscripton - purported to find deterrent effects but all of these studies 
collapse after errors in coding, measuring statistical significance, or in 
establishing causal relationships are corrected. A panel of the National 
Academy of Sciences addressed the deterrence question directly in 2012 and 
unanimously concluded that there was no credible evidence that the death 
penalty deters homicides.

The report went on to say that the issue of deterrence should be removed from 
any discussion of the death penalty given this lack of credible evidence. But 
if the deterrence argument disappears, so does the case for the death penalty.

Those familiar with criminal justice issues are not surprised by the lack of 
deterrence. To get the death penalty in the United States one has to commit an 
extraordinarily heinous crime, as evidenced by the fact that last year roughly 
14,000 murders were committed but only 35 executions took place.

Since murderers typically expose themselves to far greater immediate risks, the 
likelihood is incredibly remote that some small chance of execution many years 
after committing a crime will influence the behaviour of a sociopathic deviant 
who would otherwise be willing to kill if his only penalty were life 
imprisonment.

Any criminal who actually thought he would be caught would find the prospect of 
life without parole to be a monumental penalty. Any criminal who didn't think 
he would be caught would be untroubled by any sanction.

Wasted resources

A better way to address the problem of homicide is to take the resources that 
would otherwise be wasted in operating a death penalty regime and use them on 
strategies that are known to reduce crime, such as hiring and properly training 
police officers and solving crimes.

Over the past 3 decades there has been a downward trend in the number of 
murders that lead to arrest and conviction to the point that only about half of 
all murders are now punished. The graphic below shows the steady decline in the 
number of homicides cleared by arrest in Connecticut, which mimics the national 
trend. Of course, even if there is an arrest, there may not be a conviction so 
the percentage of killers who are punished is smaller than this figure 
suggests.

Far better for both justice and deterrence if the resources saved by scrapping 
the death penalty could be used to increase the chance that killers would be 
caught and punished - and taken off the streets.

To give a sense of the burden of capital punishment, note that over the past 35 
years the state of California spent roughly $4 billion to execute 13 
individuals. The $4 billion would have been enough to hire roughly 80,000 
police officers who, if appropriately assigned, would be expected to prevent 
466 murders (and much other crime) in California - far more than any of the 
most optimistic (albeit discredited) views of the possible benefits of capital 
punishment.

In other words, since the death penalty is a costly and inefficient system, its 
use will waste resources that could be expended on crime-fighting measures that 
are known to be effective. It is not surprising that last summer a federal 
judge ruled that California's capital regime is unconstitutional on the grounds 
that it serves no legitimate penological interest.

The sharp decline in executions in the US from the peak of 98 in 1999 down to 
35 last year (with death sentences falling from a 1996 peak of 315 to 73), 
coupled with the steady pace of states abolishing the death penalty over the 
past eight years (including conservative Nebraska in May) shows that "smart on 
crime" entails shunning capital punishment.

With zero evidence that the death penalty provides any tangible benefits and 
very clear indications of its monetary, human, and social costs, this is one 
programme about which there can be little debate that its costs undeniably 
outweigh any possible benefits.

(source: John Donohue, C Wendell and Edith M Carlsmith Professor of Law at 
Stanford University---- Businesstech.co.za)