[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., VA., N.C., FLA., ALA., NEB., USA

[Rick Halperin]

April 21




TEXAS:

Texas is using "Of Mice and Men" to justify executing this man. Seriously. ---- 
Bobby James Moore has an intellectual disability, yet he sits on death row 
because of deeply unscientific evidence


Bobby James Moore has a lifelong intellectual disability, yet he sits on 
Texas's death row because the courts there used John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and 
Men" to decide his fate.

That's right - the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals went with a fictional novel 
over science and medicine to measure Bobby's severe mental limitations. The 
justices heard a vast body of evidence demonstrating these limitations, which 
meet the widely accepted scientific standards for defining intellectual 
disability. Then they rejected it all according to 7 wildly unscientific 
factors for measuring intellectual disability, drawn in large part from the 
fictional character Lennie Small. Bobby was no Lennie, they concluded, ruling 
that his disability wasn't extreme enough to exempt him from the death penalty. 
On Friday, the Supreme Court will decide whether to take Bobby's case.

Executing people with intellectual disabilities is unconstitutional. The grey 
area is that the Supreme Court allows the states to define intellectual 
disability, leaving an opening for Texas to create a standard based partly on 
"Of Mice and Men." With its decision in Hall v. Florida 2 years ago, though, 
the Supreme Court made clear that states may not adopt definitions of 
intellectual disability that don't conform to accepted scientific standards. 
It's hard to come up with a less scientific standard than a novel written 
nearly 80 years ago. No one's life should depend on an interpretation of 
Steinbeck.

Under current professional standards, a person with intellectual disability has 
significant deficits in intellectual functioning (IQ) and significant deficits 
in adaptive functioning (how well one adjusts to daily life) that manifest 
before the age of 18. Bobby has a clear intellectual disability that has been 
evident his entire life. Living in Houston in the 1970s, Bobby's family was so 
poor that they often went without food. Bobby and his siblings found discarded 
food in the neighbors' trash cans. When they got sick from the scraps, Bobby's 
siblings stopped eating from the trash cans, but Bobby never learned that 
lesson. He would eat the discarded food and get sick, over and over again.

Growing up, Bobby rarely spoke. His teachers suspected that he had an 
intellectual disability, but they did not know what to do with him. They would 
ask Bobby to sit and draw pictures while they taught the rest of the class 
reading, writing, and math - or worse, they would send him to the hallway to 
sit alone. Bobby failed the 1st grade twice but was socially promoted to 2nd 
grade. His abusive and alcoholic father slammed the door in the face of the few 
teachers who tried to intervene on Bobby's behalf.

When he reached age 13, Bobby still didn't know the days of the week, the 
months of the year, the seasons, or how to tell time. The school system finally 
acknowledged that Bobby should receive some intervention, and counselors 
recommended that his teachers drill him daily on this basic information. But by 
that point it was too late. The schools continued to socially promote him until 
he dropped out of school in the 9th grade.

Without support for his disability and in an effort to escape his violent home 
life, Bobby was left to survive on the streets. He got caught up with the wrong 
crowd, and at 20 years old, he followed 2 acquaintances who had made plans to 
rob a store. Bobby was armed with a shotgun, though the group just wanted money 
and had no intention to kill anyone. But Bobby panicked when an employee 
screamed, and he accidentally discharged the shotgun. He did not learn until 
later that his shotgun blast had hit a clerk.

Bobby was charged with homicide in 1980 and sentenced to death later that same 
year. He and his lawyers didn't have a chance to present evidence of his 
intellectual disability until more than 20 years later, when the Supreme Court 
ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the Constitution forbids the execution of 
people with intellectual disability. Bobby's attorneys then petitioned for a 
hearing to show that he should be exempt from the death penalty.

They presented evidence from multiple experts and decades of records showing 
Bobby's intellectual disability. Over the years, his IQ scores have ranged from 
the low 50s to the 70s, with an average score of 70.66. Using the appropriate 
scientific standards, the judge found that Bobby met the current definition of 
intellectual disability and should be sentenced instead to life without parole.

But the state appealed. That's when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals used 
its unscientific factors, roughly based on Lennie, to uphold Bobby's death 
sentence. The court ignored the Supreme Court's ruling in Hall that determining 
intellectual disability should never be subject to a strict 70-point cutoff. In 
fact, when the state's own expert tested Bobby, he scored 57.

Lennie Smalls was never meant to appear in court. He is a figment of John 
Steinbeck's imagination. Texas must stop using such unscientific factors as an 
excuse to execute people with intellectual disability who don't fit Lennie's 
mold. The Supreme Court must give Bobby a chance to live.

(source: Anna Arceneaux is a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties 
Union's Capital Punishment Project. She represents clients in capital cases at 
the trial and direct appeal levels across the South----salon.com)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Frein's attorneys argue against death penalty


Defense attorneys for accused trooper killer Eric Frein argued at a pre-trial 
hearing April 19 that the death penalty sought by Pike County District Attorney 
Ray Tonkin should be dropped if Frein is convicted.

Judge Gregory Chelak made no ruling that day, after he decided to hold a 
portion of the hearing "in camera," meaning that members of the public and 
media were asked to leave while a video was shown in testimony.

One reporter objected to the judge about the decision, Tonkin explained in a 
phone call, resulting in a new hearing being scheduled for Thursday, April 21, 
as this paper goes to press. The judge will rule whether to hold the hearing 
"in camera."

Another hearing is scheduled for Friday morning to continue the 1st, 
interrupted hearing. Tonkin said both sides will present arguments in front of 
the judge on Thursday, after which the judge decide whether the case warrants 
capital punishment.

Frein is accused of fatally shooting Corporal Bryon Dickson and of also 
shooting trooper Alex Douglass, who suffered very serious injuries that 
required long hospitalization.

The shooting at the Blooming Grove police barracks in fall of 2014 resulted in 
a huge manhunt lasting for weeks, after which Frein was eventually captured 
near an unused airport hangar in nearby Pocono woods - but not before he 
appeared on FBI's 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list.

(source: Pike County Courier)






VIRGINIA:

Execution secrecy in Virginia


The state of Virginia has taken a step backwards on the death penalty. Calls 
for the return of the electric chair have been rejected, but secrecy around 
lethal injections has increased.

The courts in Arkansas and Missouri have already rejected attempts to keep 
execution drug suppliers secret. But lawmakers in Virginia passed a 
controversial bill designed to shroud execution procedures in secrecy and 
shield drug suppliers from the Freedom of Information Act.

The bill also proposes using secret batches of specially mixed medicines, known 
as compounded medicines, in executions by lethal injection. But the use of 
compounded medicines in executions is opposed by both the American Pharmacists 
Association and the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists.

"This takes the state down a dangerous road. Virginia's secret drug law 
completely ignores the wishes of pharmacists, who - like the companies who make 
the drugs - are in the business of saving lives rather than ending them. 
Sourcing drugs in secret will drive the lethal injection process further into 
the shadows, removing any accountability from the process and increasing the 
risk of botches."----Maya Foa, Director of Reprieve's Death Penalty Team

An innocent man on Virginia's death row

An innocent man, Ivan Teleguz, is sitting on Virginia's death row for a crime 
he didn't commit. The man who confessed to the murder of his former partner is 
serving a life sentence for the crime. The prosecutor coerced witnesses and 
even used a made-up murder to scare the jury into handing down a death 
sentence. Despite all the evidence, Virginia still plans to execute Ivan.

The case against Ivan was based on false evidence. 3 men said that he hired his 
former partner's killer. But 2 of those men have since admitted that they lied 
in court - and have sworn under oath that Ivan was not involved. The 3rd, 
Michael Hetrick, confessed to the killing. He was offered a deal: if he said 
that Ivan hired him to murder Stephanie, his own life would be spared.

The prosecution even used a made-up murder to make sure that Ivan was given a 
death sentence. At trial, the prosecutor said that Ivan should be given the 
death penalty because he was involved in another murder in Pennsylvania and was 
highly dangerous. It was later revealed that the murder never even happened.

There is evidence that calls into question every part of the case against Ivan. 
There is too much doubt for this execution to go ahead.

(source: reprieve.org.uk)






NORTH CAROLINA:

'Still ... Life' explores death penalty in North Carolina


Timing is impeccable for The Justice Theater Project's encore performance of a 
show that explores the many sides and the human toll of the death penalty in 
North Carolina.

Deb Royals, artistic director for the Raleigh theater group, spent 2 years 
doing field work and research to write "Still ... Life. An Exploration of a 
Killing State, North Carolina."

It's the 3rd of 4 shows voted fan favorites that helped define the advocacy 
theater in its early years. And it punctuates this theater season, themed "Let 
Justice Roll Like a River."

"Still ... Life" is back for one weekend only, April 28-May 1, at the Umstead 
Park United Church of Christ in Raleigh. The event includes pre-show 
discussions and the program's 1st buffet dinner theater.

The show was first presented in 2006 at local schools, churches and 
universities. In 2008, it was presented at the Carolina Performing Arts' 
Criminal/Justice Series in conjunction with UNC's yearlong look at the death 
penalty.

Della Pollock, a UNC communications professor, said the issues discussed years 
ago are even more critical now "as, among other things, we're beginning to 
recognize the gross number of innocent people on death row."

"When we see the face of this struggle and begin to recognize it and, beyond 
recognizing it, begin to feel the proximity of these issues to our own lives, 
then we can no longer, to my mind, indulge revenge or remain distant and 
relatively bureaucratic," Pollock said. "People are beginning to see that and 
wanting to deal with the death penalty - live. That's what performance 
provides, so it's not a distant object or concept or policy, but a matter of 
human life."

The show turns a mirror to state-sponsored executions through slides and 
first-hand accounts, and shares the points of view of loved ones of murder 
victims and prisoners.

A pastor who ministers to death row inmates lovingly keeps the handkerchief he 
used to wipe the tears of an executed inmate. A daughter relives the details of 
her mother's murder. And a soon-to-be-executed inmate apologizes to his 
victim's family.

"The people I interviewed are so compelling and the things they discuss go 
beyond the death penalty," Royals said. "They talk about economics and race and 
our systems, in general, and the ways in which they work or do not work.

"A decade later, it's still such an important issue in our state."

She's right. Consider:

In August, Gov. Pat McCrory signed the Restoring Proper Justice Act, which 
relaxes state execution procedures and clears a path to end a hiatus here, 
where about 148 people remain on death row.

At least 9 North Carolinians are among about 150 people exonerated and freed 
from death row in 26 states since the early 1970s.

Legal battles - from debates over methods and botched executions to evidence of 
racial bias - have stalled executions since 2006 in North Carolina, 1 of 31 
states where the death penalty is legal.

Scott Bass, a licensed marriage and family therapist, saw "Still ... Life" 
debut.

"Regardless of whether a person supports or opposes the death penalty, they at 
least ought to know what they supporting or opposing," he said.

Ultimately, Royals said, meaningful lessons emerge: There are no rich people on 
death row. The systems failed some folks it could have saved from, say, abusive 
homes or academic failings. Execution costs the state more than a sentence of 
life without parole.

"I have now met 3 people who were living on death row who were exonerated," 
Royals said.

If you go

The Justice Theater Project will present "Still ... Life. An Exploration of a 
Killing State, North Carolina" April 28-May 1 at Umstead Park United Church of 
Christ, 8208 Brownleigh Drive, Raleigh. Tickets are $10 for the April 28-29 and 
May 1 show; and $25 for the dinner theater show April 30. Go to 
www.thejusticetheaterproject.org or call 919-264-7089.

(source: News & Observer)






FLORIDA:

Daytona man twice convicted in bloody sword killing back on trial


A man accused in the sword killing of a Virginia businessman in a Daytona Beach 
motel in 1991 went on trial on Thursday for the 3rd time.

Prosecutors are hoping to send James "Chico" Guzman back to death row where he 
had been until a federal appeals court in 2011 overturned his conviction. 
Guzman is charged with first-degree murder and robbery in the trial before 
Circuit Judge Terence Perkins at the S. James Foxman Justice Center in Daytona 
Beach. If convicted, Guzman could face the death penalty.

Guzman, 51, had been on death row since 1996, when he was convicted a 2nd time 
of killing David Colvin, 48, from Norfolk, Virginia. Colvin was found stabbed 
to death on Aug. 12, 1991, at the Imperial Motor Lodge on South Ridgewood 
Avenue.

A federal appeals court in 2011 affirmed a lower court's ruling that Guzman 
should get a new trial. At the center of Guzman's appeal was the fact that a 
key witness was paid $500 as a reward, which was not disclosed by the lead 
detective in the case.

Guzman's 1st conviction had also been overturned. Now he is back on trial but 
some of the people who testified at the earlier trials have died and a gold 
ring Guzman is accused of stealing has been sold by Colvin's wife, who said she 
felt it was a bad omen. But prosecutors showed jurors a picture of the ring.

Defense attorneys reserved their opening statements but Assistant State 
Attorney John Reid had plenty to say.

Reid told a jury of 8 men and 5 women that Colvin was living in the hotel after 
his drinking problems prompted him and his wife to agree they should separate. 
Colvin, a NASCAR fan who had been attending races for 20 years, made his way to 
Daytona Beach.

Colvin did not drive because he was often drunk so he had Guzman chauffeur him 
around Daytona Beach in a black Cadillac. Guzman would even wear a black 
chauffeur's hat as he drove Colvin's Cadillac.

Guzman told his girlfriend at the time, Martha Cronin, that Colvin would be an 
easy target, because he was old, drunk and had money. And Guzman said something 
else the girlfriend told police.

"When you rob someone you got to kill them because dead witnesses don't talk," 
Reid said Guzman told his girlfriend 25 years ago.

Jurors listened as Reid went through his opening statement. At least one taking 
notes several times. Guzman sat at the table between his 2 defense attorneys 
and looked down at his legal pad as he wrote or look toward Reid, who pointed 
toward Guzman several times to emphasize a point. Guzman, who is bald with a 
close-shaved grey bead, wore a pair of small glasses and a yellow shirt and 
pants.

Reid told jurors that Guzman used the ornamental sword to kill Colvin, bending 
the decorative sword in the attack. Then Guzman took Colvin's money and his 
custom-made gold ring with 13 diamonds, Reid said.

Cronin, who at the time was a prostitute, returned to their room to find Guzman 
looking shocked.

"And he says I did it. I killed David," Reid said Guzman told his girlfriend.

Cronin put the ring on her thumb and noticed a bit of blood still on it, Reid 
said.

They decided to get rid of the ring, exchanging it for a big rock of crack 
cocaine and a few hundred dollars.

Colvin's body was found 2 days later by a maintenance man. Daytona Beach police 
responded and the grisly scene they found was shown to jurors in pictures and 
on a video tape.

Colvin's head was obscured by a bloody pillow. Blood splattered the walls. The 
bent sword with a fat hilt was on a shelf above the bed.

Guzman looked at the video tape as it panned the room, but after the pillow was 
removed he looked toward his legal pad.

Beneath the pillow was Colvin's head, his hair matted, disheveled, a large gash 
next to his ear.

Hi there, and welcome to our new Viafoura commenting system! You'll likely 
notice some additional functionality and changes (never fear - in this case, 
change is a good thing).

As a reader, you can now sign in using a variety of social media accounts 
instead of being limited to logging in via Facebook. And it's easier than ever 
to engage with fellow commenters - like or dislike comments, follow other 
users, receive instant notifications on commenting activity, earn badges, or 
take a moment to flag anything that's offensive or abusive.

Yes, there'll inevitably be some hiccups and growing pains as we make this 
exciting transition. But stick with us, as we're confident this new commenting 
platform will help spark more discussion and engagement within our online 
community. Thanks for your patience, and happy commenting!

(source: Daytona Beach News-Journal)




ALABAMA----female may face death penalty

Vance woman on trial for capital murder in Ensley drug dealer slaying


Closing statements were made by defense attorneys and prosecutors today in the 
capital murder trial of a 21-year-old Vance woman charged in the 2013 slaying 
of an Ensley drug dealer.

Amber Nicole Harris faces 2 counts of capital murder - 1 for a death within a 
car and the other a death during the commission of a robbery. If convicted in 
the shooting during a course of a robbery, prosecutors could seek the death 
penalty.

2 men, Andre Dunlap and Eugene Hale, are also charged with capital murder in 
the slaying. Their trials are to be held later.

The 3 are charged in the Dec. 21, 2013 slaying of 22-year-old Quintin Long at 
an apartment complex on Avenue E in Ensley. Police found his body in a parking 
lot of the complex riddled with bullets.

Harris and Hale are being held without bond in the Jefferson County Jail.

Deputy Jefferson County District Attorney Carl S. Randall during closing 
statements this morning said that while Harris was not the shooter, "Quintin 
would be here on this Earth if not for her."

Harris was the one who called Long to set up a drug deal because she knew Long 
would trust her, Randall said. She brought the guy who had a gun and had said 
he would kill Long either that day or in the future, he said.

Harris picked up the shell casings after Long was killed, Randall said. And 
then she was so upset she injected part of the seven bags of heroin they took 
from Long's body, he said.

"Her need for the drugs got her into this," Randall said.

Gomany asked jurors to consider why Birmingham police and prosecutors let 
Harris go after her initial statements and why another man implicated in the 
shooting was never charged.

Gomany said that during 2 of Harris' video taped statements she was "dope 
sick," explaining some of the inconsistencies in her statements she made to 
police.

Harris didn't want Long killed and robbed, Gomany said. "He's her supplier. She 
needs him," he said.

Gomany urged the jury to find Harris not guilty. "She's guilty of being a 
heroin addict," he said.

Birmingham attorney Bill Myers is also representing Harris.

Harris, crying much of the time, testified Wednesday that her mother had 
committed suicide when she was a young girl and her father was on drugs and she 
doesn't know where he is, she said. Her grandparents had raised her since she 
was 4 years old, Harris said.

She had abused drugs - first alcohol, then pills and meth - since she was 14 
years old, Harris said. In the year leading up to the shooting, she became 
addicted to heroin, injecting 4 to 5 times a day, she said.

Harris said she got meth in Tuscaloosa County. "But I always got heroin in 
Birmingham," she said.

"Her need for the drugs got her into this" - Deputy Jefferson County DA Carl 
Randall <>P> Long was one of her sources for heroin, Harris said. Each time she 
bought heroin from him she would drive up roll down the window and exchange 
cash for the drugs, she said.

Prosecutors contend that Harris, along with Dunlap and Hale, had planned ahead 
of time to rob and kill Long before meeting up with him the day of the 
shooting.

Harris testified she called Long to set up the drug deal so they could rob him.

Police responded to a report of shots fired shortly before 3 p.m. Saturday.

Gomany asked Harris if she knew that Dunlap was going to shoot Long. "No sir," 
she replied.

But she did testify that when they began talking about robbing Long she was 
reluctant because Long knew her and where she stayed. Dunlap said that if Long 
ever came after her following the robbery that he would kill him, but she 
didn't think he was going to do it at that time, she said.

"He (Dunlap) didn't say he was going to kill him that day," Harris said during 
cross examination by Deputy District Attorney John Camp.

Harris said that another man, David Johnson, drove the car to the Ensley 
apartment complex, Harris said. Dunlap was in the front passenger seat, and her 
boyfriend Hale was in the backseat behind Hale and she was in the middle of 
backseat, Harris testified.

When they arrived, Long got into the backseat next to her. Dunlap then shot 
Long, she said. A total of eight shots were fired, according to testimony in 
the case.

Harris said she would have never have agreed to let Long get into the car and 
sit next to her if she knew Dunlap was going to shoot him. Long's body was 
pushed out of the vehicle (about 2 blocks away), Dunlap told everybody to get 
rid of the evidence and that's when she began picking up shell casings, she 
said.

Johnson was not charged in the case because police did not have any 
corroborating evidence that he knew the robbery and shooting was about to take 
place. "He didn't know we were going to get any type of drugs," Harris said.

In her 1st interview on Dec. 27, 2013 with Birmingham Homicide Detective Jeff 
Steele, Harris identified Dunlap as the shooter. In a second statement the next 
day she identified Hale as the shooter. But then Harris, who hadn't been 
charged yet, contacted Steele again in January to change her story again and 
identified Dunlap as the shooter.

Harris admitted to having shot up with heroin just before her 1st and 3rd 
statements to Steele.

Robbing a drug dealer was not initially her idea but she came around to it, 
Harris said. "I never once tried to eliminate my involvement," Harris said 
during cross examination by Camp.

Steele, in a preliminary hearing after the shooting, had said Dunlap and Hale 
also had pointed the finger at each other as the shooter.

(source: al.com)






NEBRASKA:

Activists debate death penalty as voters consider referendum


Capital punishment was repealed in the state of Nebraska nearly a year ago, 
however, the repeal won't become law until, and unless, Nebraskans vote to 
retain the repeal. The death penalty has been a source of discussion over the 
last few years and will continue to be so into November.

Western Nebraska Community College hosted a discussion at The Harms Center on 
the death penalty Wednesday. This discussion was part of a News Election 
Project series by Nebraska Educational Telecommunications (NET). The series, 
called "Classroom Conversations: Nebraska's Death Penalty Vote" will feature a 
WNCC ethics class taught by WNCC instructor Colin Croft.

The special guests at the discussion were Stacy Anderson and Bob Evnen. 
Anderson served as executive director of Nebraskans for Alternatives to the 
Death Penalty (NADP) from 2011 to 2015 when the Unicameral voted 30-16 to 
repeal capital punishment in Nebraska. Evnen is an attorney from Lincoln and 
the co-founder of Nebraskans for the Death Penalty.

Evnen is counting on Nebraskans to support the death penalty. Evnen said, "One 
reason is that it's morally justified." He went on to explain that if you 
believe that people should be held morally accountable, then you should support 
the death penalty.

"It's also a deterrent," continued Evnen. "Strong studies show that the 
existence of the death penalty works as a deterrent." Citing an example of the 
riots at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, where inmates attacked and 
killed 2 other inmates, but did not attack the guards. "What's to keep a 
'lifer' from killing a prison guard?" asked Evnen.

Anderson said that she grew up being a supporter of the death penalty until her 
friend was murdered. She wanted to know more about the death penalty and it 
changed her position.

"For every 10 people, we execute we are exonerating 1 person from death row."

She went on to compare that to commercial flights.

"If we had that sort of ratio every time a plane took off, we would close down 
the whole thing."

"We do not have any innocent people on death row in Nebraska," countered Evnen, 
pointing out that the process to hand down the death penalty is very thorough 
in Nebraska.

To which Anderson replied, "All 150 people that were released from death row 
looked incredibly guilty when they were convicted. There is no way to know for 
sure that we have the right person."

Anderson also described how the multiple appeals with death row cases cost 
incredible amounts of money, but more importantly, the appeals take a 
tremendous toll on the families of the victims. Every time the case goes up for 
appeal, the family has to relive the experience instead of putting it behind 
them and finding a way to move on.

"It is a failed, costly government program," said Anderson. "Nebraskans are 
better than that. We don't want to be in the business of executing people."

Evnen argued that instead of looking at the costs, we should look at the 
savings. He gave an example of how a person was charged with first degree 
murder and was facing the death penalty if convicted. Instead, they pleaded 
guilty and took life in prison, which saved the county the expense of a murder 
trial.

Evnen stated that if you are worried about the appeals with the death penalty, 
then we can set limits on appeals. Whatever the answer is, Evnen insisted, "The 
answer is not throwing in the towel."

Evnen stated, "There is no such thing as life without parole anyway. There is 
no such thing as life without release."

He explained that the pardons board in our state has enormous authority and can 
commute sentences. Evnen gave an example of a man that had his sentence 
commuted, he was paroled, and sexually assaulted a young girl.

"The idea that we can just get rid of the death penalty and keep going is just 
not the case."

Anderson rebutted, "Apart from the pardons board, you can't take away a life 
sentence."

She provided an Attorney General's Opinion, written by Attorney General Doug 
Peterson. Apart from the pardons board commuting a sentence of life to a term 
of years, a person cannot come up for parole.

(source: Scottsbluff Star Herald)






USA:

Ethical Contradictions - Abolishing the Death Penalty


Currently, 31 states in the U.S. still have the death penalty. According to 
ProCon.org, the remaining 19 states (including New York) and the District of 
Columbia have abolished it. Personally, and for as long as I can remember, I 
have never been in favor of this inhumane practice. Particularly from a 
Christian perspective, I do not believe an individual should support the murder 
of another divinely created being.

Before I go further, I do wish to address the simple fact that moral issues, 
such as the one in question, hold no cut and dry ethical answer. However, as a 
pacifist I find that war is never the ideal answer. Yet, I also understand that 
military duty and service to protect one's homeland and the innocent may at 
times be necessary. Furthermore, as much as I deeply hate to admit it, 
sometimes nothing other than combative action may aid a desperate situation. 
However, condemning to death an imprisoned individual who is no longer a 
societal threat is far different than those deaths which occur from "just" 
actions of war.

Many readers may argue that our country cannot fiscally afford to imprison our 
most dangerous death row inmates for life. To answer that possible rebuttal, I 
simply ask those readers to find my article from a few months' ago. That 
article discusses our country's mass incarceration problems and mandatory 
minimum sentencing. In short, our country has every ability to cut down on 
federal prison costs while also nationally abolishing the death penalty. We, as 
a nation, need to stop unjustly incarcerating low-level nonviolent offenders 
who often need rehabilitation more than long term prison sentences.

However, let us get back to the topic at hand. According to the New York Times, 
in the 1990s, 80 % of Americans supported the death penalty while presently 60 
% of Americans are in support. And while this decline is good to see, the 
problem still remains: the majority of Americans are still in favor. Killing 
another human being is still considered "okay" in the eyes of many citizens. 
Quite frankly, this fact disgusts me.

The death penalty - aside from being a legal form of murder - is also, as 
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer firmly states, an 
"unreliable, arbitrary, and racially discriminatory" sentence. Furthermore, 
Breyer, along with others, agrees that the death penalty violates the 8th 
amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment (New York Times). 
It is indeed cruel to kill another being when this action is not necessary to 
protect the safety of others.

In continuation, I also believe that another heated social justice issue must 
be brought into the discussion. It is deeply contradictory for one to be both 
pro-life and in support of the death penalty. If all life is precious (as I 
agree it is), then how can one justify murder on death row? Regardless of who 
the criminal in question has murdered and what other crimes they have 
committed, he or she does not deserve death. These criminals (yes murderers) 
are citizens of God's created earth just as you and I are. And even when on 
death row, they may still have meaningful relationships with others beings.

Thankfully the death penalty is losing support throughout the nation. And "in 
the past 14 years the Supreme Court has barred the execution of several 
categories of people" which includes "minors, the intellectually disabled, and 
those convicted of crimes other than murder," (New York Times). Yet, as the 
article's opening statistic mentioned, justice is far from attained. The death 
penalty still haunts our legal system.

Lastly, I fully recognize this article is short and only touches on the surface 
of many incredibly difficult ethical questions. However, all individuals must 
recognize a somewhat simple, yet often forgotten truth of life: existence is 
obsolete without relationships. We, as divinely created beings, only exist 
because of relationships. We inevitably relate to the Sacred, to fellow living 
bodies and to creation daily. With this in mind, questions such as the ones 
presented above must not be seen as unrelated. Inherent connections are 
ingrained within the framework of any ethical dialogue.

(source: Allyson Murphy; The opinions and views expressed in the Houghton Star 
do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of Houghton College or the 
Wesleyan Church (our sponsoring denomination).