[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., GA., FLA., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 29



PENNSYLVANIA:

DA seeks death penalty for man charged with killing ex-girlfriend, her 
grandmother----Cesar Mazza charged in deaths of Tionna Banks and Valorie 
Crumpton in East Hills

The Allegheny County District Attorney's Office intends to seek the death 
penalty for a man who's charged with stabbing his baby's 19-year-old mother and 
fatally beating the young woman's 72-year-old grandmother.

2 women found dead Thursday inside a house in Pittsburgh's East Hills 
neighborhood were victims of a double homicide, police said.

Cesar Mazza, 25, is charged with homicide in connection with the May 7 slayings 
of Tionna Banks and Valorie Crumpton at Crumpton's home on Karl Street in the 
East Hills.

"The victim was a prosecution witness to a murder or other felony committed by 
the defendant and was killed for the purpose of preventing his testimony 
against the defendant," according to a statement released by the DA's office 
Thursday.

At the time that the women were killed, Banks had a protection-from-abuse order 
that required Mazza to stay away from her. Mazza was also awaiting trial on 
charges that he punched Banks, stomped on her abdomen and dragged her down some 
steps in November 2014.

The PFA is listed as1 of 4 aggravating circumstances in the DA's notice to seek 
the death penalty. The killing of a witness is another aggravating 
circumstance.

A SWAT team was called to Crumpton's house after Pittsburgh police found the 
victims' bodies. Banks had failed to return to a group home for at-risk women 
and girls after she was given a weekend pass to visit Crumpton.

(source: WTAE news)






GEORGIA:

Berry College to host debate on pros and cons of death penalty


The pros and cons of the death penalty will be the focus of a roundtable 
discussion scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday at Berry College's Krannert Center.

Panelists are former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Norman Fletcher, of 
Rome; Floyd County District Attorney Leigh Patterson; Thomas Kennedy, dean of 
the Evans School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at Berry College; and 
the Right Rev. Robert C. Wright, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta.

The discussion is hosted by the Canterbury Club of Northwest Georgia.

Patterson said she was asked to defend the death penalty by Janice Wright, who 
organized the event.

"I do support the death penalty," she said.

Bishop Wright, Kennedy and Fletcher all oppose the death penalty.

Kennedy said he has no confidence that the death penalty is being applied in a 
fair and equitable way. Capital punishment isn't the only problem with the 
penal system, he said, and he hopes to discuss those other issues as well.

Fletcher has previously indicated he opposes the death penalty because of its 
inconsistent application and because of the number of people on death row who 
were clearly innocent.

Each panelist will get a chance to give an opening statement, Janice Wright 
said.

Then, each panelist will be given the opportunity to ask another panelist a 
question.

To finish the night, the panel will open the floor to questions from the 
audience. She expects the discussion to last about an hour.

"I'm expecting a lively conversation about an important topic - especially here 
in Georgia," she said.

Bishop Wright spoke to the club about leadership last winter, and he wanted to 
come back to share his perspective on the death penalty, Janice Wright said.

The Canterbury Club is one of the campus ministries of the Episcopal Diocese of 
Atlanta.

It is open to all students, she said, but it pays particular attention to the 
Episcopalian, Lutheran and Anglican students at Georgia Highlands, Berry 
College and Shorter University.

(source: northwestgeorgianews.com)






FLORIDA----impending execution

Florida execution will be 1st since controversial drug ruled constitutional 
---- Jerry Correll was scheduled for execution last February, but was put on 
hold as attorneys argued whether a sedative was effective in knocking inmates 
out


A central Florida man convicted of stabbing to death his young daughter, his 
ex-wife and her mother and sister 30 years ago is scheduled to be executed 
months after his execution was postponed so attorneys could litigate whether a 
sedative used in Florida's executions was constitutional.

Jerry Correll is set to be executed on Thursday for the fatal stabbings of his 
former wife, Susan Correll; their 5-year-old daughter, Tuesday; Susan Correll's 
mother, Mary Lou Hines; and Susan Correll's sister, Marybeth Jones. It will be 
Florida's 1st execution since last January. Some of the victims' family members 
plan to attend the execution, said Whitney Ray, a spokesman for the Florida 
attorney general.

Correll, 59, had been scheduled for execution last February, but it was put on 
hold as his attorneys in Florida, and attorneys at the US supreme court in a 
separate case out of Oklahoma, argued over whether a sedative used in the 
execution protocol was effective in knocking inmates out. The sedative, 
midazolam, is 1 of 3 drugs used in executions in Florida and some other states.

Several other states use sedatives such as pentobarbital and sodium thiopental, 
which have been in short supply due to restrictions placed on their use for the 
death penalty by manufacturers and the European Union, forcing some states to 
delay their scheduled executions.

Midazolam had been used in executions where inmates gasped and made noises 
before dying. In Oklahoma, Clayon Lockett writhed on the gurney, moaned and 
clenched his teeth for several minutes before prison officials tried to halt 
the process. Lockett died after 43 minutes. But the US Supreme Court ruled last 
June in an Oklahoma case that the use of midazolam was constitutional.

Florida Department of Corrections spokesman McKinley Lewis said in a statement 
that his agency has the proper equipment to carry out Correll's execution, but 
he wouldn't discuss anything about its supply of execution drugs.

Correll's attorneys have argued that his history of alcohol abuse and 
subsequent brain damage would render midazolam ineffective in knocking him 
unconscious. The sedative is followed by drugs that cause paralysis and stop 
the heart.

After the US supreme court's ruling, Correll's case was sent back to a court in 
Orlando to determine whether the sedative would work on him. After listening to 
medical experts, a state judge ruled that Correll's execution could take place.

Correll's attorneys also argued that the time he had spent on death row 
amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Earlier this month, the Florida 
supreme court rejected all those arguments, saying Correll's attorney had 
failed to how he would suffer if midazolam was used.

Correlll's lawyers, Raheela Ahmed and Maria Perinetti, didn't return phone 
calls, but in recent court filings they asked the Florida supreme court to 
postpone his execution until the US supreme court has ruled in a separate case 
on whether Florida gives judges too much power in deciding death-penalty 
sentences. Arguments in that US supreme court case were heard earlier this 
month.

"While the harm to Correll would be irreparable if a stay is not granted, 
Florida, in comparison, will suffer little appreciable harm," Correll's 
attorneys said in a recent filing.

(source: The Guardian)






USA:

Sanders highlights opposition to death penalty in his latest bid to draw 
contrasts with Clinton


Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders took to the Senate floor Thursday to 
highlight his opposition to the death penalty in his latest bid to draw policy 
distinctions with Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The senator from Vermont said he understands that people are "shocked and 
disgusted" by horrific killings, but he argued that the government "should not 
be involved in the murder of other Americans."

"It seems to me at a time of rampant violence and murder ... it is important 
that the state itself ... say loud and clearly that we will not be a part of 
that process," Sanders said during a speech in which he also recounted a plan 
unveiled Wednesday on the campaign trail to nix marijuana from the federal 
government's list of outlawed drugs.

That move -- which Sanders said would free states to regulate marijuana as they 
see fit -- also sets him apart from the former secretary of state, who has 
advocated a more cautious approach on the issue.

Sanders's decision to highlight the death penalty came a day after Clinton said 
in New Hampshire that she does not support abolition of the death penalty, 
arguing that "there are certain egregious cases that still deserve 
consideration."

Clinton, however, said the use of capital punishment should be "very limited 
and rare," and that "we have to be smarter and more careful about how we do 
it." Her comments came in response to a question by an audience member at a 
"Politics & Eggs" forum at St. Anselm College in Manchester.

Over the past week, Sanders's campaign has ramped up its efforts to highlight 
issues on which he and Clinton disagree or on which he took a more progressive 
position sooner than she did. Those have included trade, Wall Street regulation 
and gay rights.

Although a majority of Americans continue to support use of the death penalty, 
the level of support has been declining, and a solid majority of Democrats now 
oppose it, according to a Pew Research Center survey in March.

Among the broader population, 56 % voiced support for the death penalty, while 
38 % opposed it. Among Democrats, only 40 % voiced support, while 56 % said 
they opposed the death penalty.

The politics surround the issue has changed markedly in recent election cycles. 
In the past, Democrats who opposed capital punishment were often branded soft 
on crime. Back in 1996, Democrats favored capital punishment by a wide margin, 
71 % to 25 %, according to Pew.

In the 2016 Democratic race, both Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin 
O'Malley have now talked up their desire to put an end to the death penalty.

As governor, O'Malley championed legislation in 2013 that abolished capital 
punishment in Maryland. Before leaving office early this year, he also commuted 
the sentences of the state???s four remaining inmates on the death row to life 
in prison without the possibility of parole.

In his speech Thursday, Sanders stressed that the government should not go easy 
on murderers -- just not kill them.

"When people commit horrendous crimes, and we see too many of them, we should 
lock them up and throw away the key," Sanders said.

(source: Washington Post)

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

On Senate Floor, Bernie Sanders Calls for Ending the Death Penalty


A day after Hillary Rodham Clinton said she opposed abolishing the death 
penalty, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the Senate floor on Thursday and 
declared that "the time is now for the United States to end capital 
punishment."

In seizing an opportunity to appeal to liberals who might be disappointed with 
Mrs. Clinton's views, Mr. Sanders asserted that ending the death penalty was 
"the right point of view," arguing that the government "should itself not be 
involved in the murder of other Americans."

"I would rather have our country stand side-by-side with European democracies 
rather than with countries like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others who 
maintain the death penalty," Mr. Sanders said.

He added that "at a time of rampant violence and murder all over the world," 
the United States government should "say loud and clearly that we will not be 
part of that process."

"I think that those of us who want to set an example - who want to say that we 
have got to end the murders and the violence that we're seeing in our country 
and all over the world - should, in fact, be on the side of those of us who 
believe that we must end capital punishment in this country," Mr. Sanders said.

Mrs. Clinton weighed in on the death penalty on Wednesday in response to a 
question from a voter in New Hampshire. Though she said she did not support its 
abolition, she expressed concern that the death penalty "has been too 
frequently applied, and too often in a discriminatory way."

(source: New York Times)

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

Why I Oppose the Death Penalty: Redemption Is Always Possible, so Killing Is 
Always Wrong


Imagine the worst thing you've ever done. Hold onto that thought for a moment. 
Now ask yourself: Does that moment define you? Should that moment define you? 
If you're like me, you'll find that even though we all make mistakes in life, 
even though we all fall short of our greatest ideals and hopes, our worst 
decisions don't necessarily reflect our true character. How many of us did 
stupid things when we were younger? How many have committed acts we regret? As 
we age, we make mistakes. As we make mistakes, we learn and grow.

How does it make sense, then, to brand convicted felons as permanently 
"unworthy" of life? If we were truly rational and consistent in our moral 
outrage, this possibility would be wholly untenable - for they, like us, 
possess the capacity to change - yet we persist in our delusional thinking 
about retributive punishment, character, and ethics. We forget why we condemn 
murder in the first place - its incredible and horrible finality, its absolute 
denial of any and all ability to learn and grow. This rebuff of human 
potentiality confuses justice for vengeance.

Don't get me wrong: The death penalty is about many things - retribution, 
punishment, anger, a misguided desire for some illusory "cosmic balancing" of 
the scales of justice. Yet it is most about imagination. Because even though 
society takes solace in a belief that the people we legally murder deserve 
death because they once caused it, this rationale lies in the realm of fiction, 
not reality. Because people change.

The men and women who were sentenced to death decades ago are not the same men 
and women alive today. After languishing for perhaps fifteen years in solitary 
confinement, one finds a lot of time to think and to read and to reminisce and 
to regret and to immerse oneself in redemptive activity and thought. While of 
course not all death row inmates avail themselves of these opportunities, many 
do. Many go through a crucible of pain and suffering and emerge as better 
people, as people who are shed of past wrongdoings in character if not in deed, 
as people who are immersed in religion or philosophy or wisdom drawn from a 
well of mistakes made and sufferings suffered.

As a result of the mere existence of this natural process of change, we are (in 
a sense) executing innocent people: That is to say, we are killing men and 
women so far changed from who they were when they committed their horrendous 
crimes that to say we are doling out truly retributive justice - much less just 
justice - is nonsensical. We aren't executing the same person. We are killing, 
instead, a much-improved "version" of the criminal we sentenced, a person who 
bears little to no resemblance to the dumb, inexperienced kid who committed a 
heinous crime perhaps 15 or 20 years ago.

Anecdotes are plentiful. There is William Happ, who committed a brutal murder 
in 1986 only to recant decades later. There is Robert Waterhouse, who may well 
have been innocent in the legal manner rather than the manner I use the term in 
this essay, and who maintained his innocence until the end. The list is 
tragically long. For every death row inmate who didn't change for the better 
after his sentencing, there is another who recanted in sincere and moving ways. 
What good does it do to kill these people? What good, when they have made so 
much moral progress?

The death penalty is dying; it's only a matter of time. How many people will it 
need to take with it? Society rightly condemns murder because death is the very 
definition of finality. It can't be undone. So of course I understand why the 
impulse to kill those who kill exists. Faced with the death of a loved one, I 
sometimes wonder whether I myself would be able to uphold my ideals and forgo 
the impulse for retribution. I don't have the temerity to judge anyone who 
supports the death penalty.

But killing people who kill is wrong for the same reasons killing others is 
wrong: Death's finality denies all possibility of change. By killing people who 
kill, we either (1) kill men and women who have changed for the better or (2) 
deny murderers the possibility of reforming their characters and lives. This is 
repugnant to all moral systems, but especially Christianity. In the immortal 
words of Justice William Douglas, the "principle of forgiveness and the 
doctrine of redemption are too deep in our philosophy to admit that there is no 
return for those who have once erred."

Murder is the most heinous crime there is. But it is a better society where 
murderers, already justly suffering through a life in prison, can at least 
meditate on their crimes and redeem themselves by changing - mentally - for the 
better. Killing killers denies the possibility of redemptive change while 
perpetuating the very crime that put these people in prison in the first place.

If we are really consistent in our condemnation of murder, if we truly 
acknowledge the power of change and the possibility for redemption, we should 
not ourselves - through our votes and through our politics - become collective 
murderers.

Stop killing people.

(source: Michael Shammas, Harvard Law Record)

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

Death-penalty specialist allowed to represent Wyoming man


A judge has granted a request for a death penalty specialist to represent an 
18-year-old Wyoming man accused of killing a husband and wife on Montana's Crow 
Indian Reservation.

U.S. District Judge Susan Watters on Wednesday approved the motion to appoint 
attorney Donald Knight of Littleton, Colorado, after rejecting a previous 
request.

Originally, Watters said defendant Jesus Deniz Mendoza had 3 federal public 
defenders and failed to show why he needed another.

After the new request clarified that Federal Defender Anthony Gallagher is not 
acting as an attorney who is "learned in the law applicable to capital cases," 
Watters granted Knight's appointment.

Prosecutors are considering pursuing the death penalty against Mendoza for the 
July 29 killings of Jason and Tana Shane near Pryor.

The Worland man has pleaded not guilty.

(source: Associated Press)

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

The death penalty and multimedia


I'll start by saying I think the death penalty is the most premeditated way to 
kill. Furthermore, multimedia campaigns bring the death penalty into our lives 
more than it ever was prior to Twitter, Facebook, etc.

So, it made me pause as I read about Neville the dog, who bit a 2-year- old and 
subsequently ordered killed so as to prevent any more injuries to humans. As of 
this writing Neville has been given a reprieve. Neville's multimedia 
campaigners might be just as fervent as those who sought to save the life of 
Kelly Gissendaner who was executed by the state of Georgia last month.

Forgive me if it appears as though I'm trying to compare a dog to a human 
being. I truly am awestruck by the energy surrounding both cases. As I read the 
news articles about Neville the dog, it occurred to me that the language used 
by lawyers and others in both cases sounded very much the same. There were 
celebrities voicing their opinions in both cases. Kelly Gissendaner even had a 
letter from Pope Francis asking authorities to rescind her execution orders.

As I ponder these situations, I recognize that life is at the heart of the 
matter. Those that supported Ms. Gissendaner valued her life and therefore, 
sought to save it. I do not think that approach in any way undermines the value 
of life she participated in taking. Others disagree and I am not unsympathetic 
to their arguments.

And as far as Neville is concerned, I don't know the particulars. 2-year-olds 
are 2 years old and they do things that dogs don't understand, which may result 
in a rebuke such as a bite. Should Neville die? I honestly don't know. But, I 
respect those who seek to save him because they value all forms of life. And 
I'm sure they don't want another child hurt anymore than anyone else does.

Life - how do we honor and respect it? That's really the question, isn't it? 
The answers are not easy, at least not for me. I am 95 % or more against the 
death penalty, but I look at mass murders like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson and 
shrug my shoulders, not out of indifference, but out of uncertainty. Have we 
missed Ted Bundy? Did we do ourselves harm by executing him even as cold 
blooded as execution is?

You may wonder if I'm simply rambling on with this article. Maybe I am and 
that's because I'm still trying to work out in my own mind what I think is just 
and right in these cases, but try as I might, I cannot bring myself to say the 
answer is the death penalty. It's too final. There's no going back. Kelly 
Gissendaner is dead and she is not coming back. Some will applaud that reality. 
Her children mourn it. I find that reality to be nauseating.

(source: Rev. Mary Wilson is pastor of Church of the Savior in Cedar Park, 
which is affiliated with The United Church of Christ, American Baptist Churches 
- USA and The Alliance of Baptists; hillcountrynews.com)