[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OHIO, KAN., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 21



OHIO:

Anti-death penalty group announces speakers for walk to Columbus


The group planning a walk from Southern Ohio Correctional Facility to the 
Statehouse in Columbus in opposition to Ohio???s death penalty has announced 
the speakers who will address walkers each evening during the trek.

Among those scheduled to speak are former director of the Ohio Department of 
Rehabilitation and Correction, Terry Collins, who, according to a news release 
from the group, participated in 33 executions; Derrick Jamison, who was 
exonerated in 2005 after serving 20 years on Ohio's death row; Sam Reese 
Sheppard, whose father, Dr. Sam Sheppart, was, according to the news release, 
wrongly convicted in the murder of his wife, and Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood, a Southern 
Baptist minister who has engaged with death row prisoners in Texas. Hood is the 
author of 7 books.

The event is jointly organized by Scioto Peace & Justice Fellowship of 
Reconciliation, Intercommunity Justice & Peace Center, Footprints for Peace, 
Unitarian Universalist Justice Ohio, and Ohioans to Stop Executions.

Starting at 8:30 a.m. on Sunday Oct. 4, death penalty abolitionists from Ohio 
and beyond will begin a 7 day, 83-mile walk from the SOCF where Ohio conducts 
executions to the Statehouse in Columbus, calling for an end to capital 
punishment. More than a dozen participants are registered to walk the entire 
route, and the group says hundreds of supporters from across Ohio are expected 
for the final leg to the Statehouse on Saturday, Oct. 10, which is observed 
internationally as World Day Against the Death Penalty.

At evening programs in Portsmouth on Oct. 3, Chillicothe on Oct. 5, Circleville 
on Oct. 7, and Columbus on Oct. 9, residents of local communities are invited 
to conversations about the death penalty with walkers and special guests.

(source: Portsmouth Daily Times)






KANSAS:

Mixed reactions felt on Kansas College Republicans' death penalty resolution


As the presidential election cycle continues to highlight the differences 
between Republicans and Democrats, a student group in Kansas is attempting to 
create unity among the parties on 1 issue.

As expected, however, not everybody thinks it is the right move.

In August, the Kansas Federation of College Republicans, which represents the 
state's major universities, came to a unanimous vote among its representatives 
to call for an end to the death penalty. While the Kansas Republican Party is 
officially neutral on the issue, support of the death penalty is traditionally 
seen as a conservative value.

Dalton Glasscock, the student group's chairman and a Wichita State student, 
sees the resolution as a natural extension of the party's generally pro-life 
stance.

"We've always been on the forefront of protecting bodies," Glasscock said.

In an August editorial in The Wichita Eagle, Glasscock wrote at length about 
the decision, saying the stance is more "consistently conservative" than 
before, a 2014 study suggests, 4.1 % of death row inmates are actually 
innocent.

"We simply cannot support a policy that would endanger even one innocent life," 
Glasscock wrote.

As a member of the WSU chapter of College Republicans, Austin Gilpin is against 
the resolution. He said it only serves to alienate young Republicans who may 
passionately support the death penalty.

"I think it creates an atmosphere of shutting up one side, especially when it 
is a really divisive issue," Gilpin said. "It doesn't really work to accomplish 
anything."

Paige Hungate, WSU College Republican Chair, however, said traditional 
conservative stances on certain issues such as the death penalty are eroding as 
younger Republicans gain more influence in the party.

"I think it's important that the College Republicans are taking a stand," 
Hungate said. "We always say that we're the grand old party for the new 
generation."

Hungate, a devout Catholic, also echoed Glasscock's sentiments that supporting 
the death penalty is inconsistent with her personal beliefs.

"In the Catholic faith, it says that the death penalty should not be used 
unless there is no other way of containing that person," Hungate said. "I think 
that, in today's society, we have so many different ways of containing 
individuals like that and we shouldn't put that heavy burden on taxpayers."

Hungate worked as an intern for U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran in Washington D.C. in the 
spring. She said her experience there influenced her decision to bridge the gap 
between Democrats and Republicans on this issue.

"I think it's problematic that you can sit there and count how many votes 
you're going to get on a certain bill just based on party lines," Hungate said. 
"The fact that we're reaching across the aisle and we're kind of meeting there, 
I think that's important."

Paul Brink, WSU College Democrats president, agreed that unity between the 
parties is preferable to the gridlock that has become common in the nation's 
capital.

"Throughout history, the only way we get anything accomplished is when everyone 
can find some common ground and find things we agree on and work towards that," 
Brink said.

Brink also said the resolution could represent a shift among young Republicans, 
and to him that is a good thing.

"I think reception among young people in general has been positive," Brink 
said. "Most people don't see it as true justice."

Gilpin, on the other hand, would like to see the issue discussed again among 
College Republicans. He said the vote occurred in the summer, and now that 
everyone is back in school and involved in the process, the conversation could 
be different.

"I would like for them to reconsider it," Gilpin said. "It is not near as 
decided as they would like to paint it."

(source: The Sunflower)






USA:

5 Cases to Watch in the Supreme Court's Next Term


The Supreme Court's last term was one for the history books, with high-profile 
cases involving Obamacare and gay marriage.

The next term may not attract the same level of attention from the media and 
general public, but the justices will consider a number of important issues. 
Voting rights, public employee unions, and racial preferences in college 
admissions, and sentencing in death penalty cases are just a few of the big 
issues coming up in the 2015-2016 term.

1.Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. This is Abigail Fisher's 2nd trip to 
the Supreme Court in her challenge to the university's use of race in college 
admissions decisions. In Fisher I, the Court ruled that the lower courts were 
too deferential to school administrators and they must look at actual evidence 
and not rely on school administrators' assurances of their good intentions. 
Given the history of this case, the university may be facing an uphill battle.

2.Evenwel v. Abbott. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause 
includes a "1-person, 1-vote" guarantee. The plaintiffs in Evenwel challenge 
the constitutionality of the Texas legislature's use of total population in 
drawing the state Senate's districts, arguing that this violates "1 person, 1 
vote" by significantly diluting their votes compared to neighboring districts 
with large populations of illegal aliens. The Court has previously said states 
are free to choose which population to use in drawing district lines, unless it 
would otherwise violate the Constitution.

3.Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Can public employee unions 
require non-members to pay their "fair share" of the costs of collective 
bargaining? The Supreme Court said "yes" in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education 
(1977), but recent cases have called into question continuing validity of that 
decision due to concerns about impinging employees' free speech and 
associational rights. A group of California teachers are calling on the Court 
to overrule Abood, arguing that public-sector collective bargaining is 
political speech and compelling them to subsidize that speech violates the 
First Amendment.

4.Hurst v. Florida. The Court will review Florida's bifurcated death-penalty 
sentencing scheme, which requires a judge to find 1 or more aggravating 
circumstances in order to impose the death penalty. A death-row inmate argues 
that findings of fact - such as the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
circumstances - are for a jury, not a judge, to decide in light of the Supreme 
Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona (2002). Florida maintains that Ring 
requires only that the jury decide whether there are sufficient facts to make 
the defendant eligible for the capital punishment.

5.Kansas v. Carr and Kansas v. Carr. In 3 consolidated cases from Kansas, the 
Supreme Court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment requires separate 
sentencing hearings for defendants who were tried together. Brothers Reginald 
and Jonathan Carr were charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced together for a 
crime spree that included robbery, carjacking, torture, rape, and murder. The 
state court vacated their death sentences, finding that the Constitution 
guarantees a right to individualized sentencing.

(source: Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of 
the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional 
provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a 
legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and 
Judicial Studies----The Daily Signal)