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

[Rick Halperin]

June 8



OHIO:

Man accused of killing police officer will face death penalty


A man accused of killing a Columbus Police SWAT officer will face the death 
penalty, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney Ron O'Brien said Tuesday.

A grand jury indicted Lincoln Rutledge, 44, on 11 counts, with death-penalty 
specifications, in the shooting death of Officer Steven Smith on April 10. 
Smith died of his injuries April 12.

The charges include 2 counts of aggravated murder stemming from Smith's death 
and a charge of aggravated arson in a fire set at his estranged wife's 
Clintonville home. Rutledge was also indicted on 4 counts each of attempted 
murder and felonious assault because authorities say he attempted to kill 3 
other officers.

"A law enforcement officer in the course of duty is the most serious kind of 
homicide there can be committed because they're out there trying to protect the 
rest of us on a daily basis," O'Brien said.

Smith, a 27 year police veteran, was shot in the head during a standoff at an 
apartment on California Ave. SWAT officers were trying to serve a warrant on 
Rutledge related to the arson investigation.

Though Smith was the only officer killed in the confrontation, another officer 
was nearly hit when Smith fired shots into the floor at officers in the 
basement, O'Brien said. A bullet went through an officer's clothing and gear, 
but did not injure him, O'Brien added.

According to Ohio law, the death penalty can be sought in murder cases when the 
victim is a police officer.

"I think that speaks to their special status in society as the protectors of 
the public," O'Brien said.

The prosecutor's office sought the death penalty because Rutledge's attempt to 
harm the officers who were trying to apprehend him and because of his attempted 
escape, O'Brien said.

The last time the prosecutor's office sought the death penalty was in the case 
of Wendell Callahan, who is charged with stabbing his ex-girlfriend and 2 of 
her children on Jan. 12.

Rutledge's arraignment is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Friday in Common Pleas 
courtroom 6E before Judge Mark Serrott.

(source: Columbus Dispatch)






OKLAHOMA:

DA to make decision on death penalty for older Bever brother by mid-July


A long list of motions were filed Friday in the case of 2 Broken Arrow teens 
accused of killing 5 of their family members and hurting another.

Michael and Robert Bever will enter a plea July 11. They are accused of killing 
their parents and 3 siblings, as well as stabbing 1 of their sisters.

Court documents show motions to prohibit: juror dispersal; exposure to family 
and friends of the defendants and victims; introduction of photos of the 
deceased; the deceased's family from showing emotion in the courtroom; witness 
conversation; and displays of grief by spectators.

Additionally, motions were filed to suppress defendant statements, compel 
disclosure of all jailhouse informants, inspect all exhibits before trial, 
examine and prevent destruction of evidence samples without notice, and 
preserve all handwritten notes and tape recordings of law enforcement officers.

(source: Fox news)






NEBRASKA:

Hearing underway to determine if Jenkins is competent for death penalty


A Douglas County District Court judge heard arguments Tuesday in the competency 
trial of Nikko Jenkins. Jenkins is convicted of killing 4 people and Tuesday's 
hearing is to determine if he is competent to continue with the sentencing 
portion of his trial.

The prosecution and the defense each called 1 witness, and both had different 
opinions. The view of Nikko Jenkins' entrance and exit from court was blocked 
by a dark curtain. Douglas County Sheriff Officials took total control of 
Jenkins outside of the courtroom.

Inside a different story: Jenkins entered the courtroom ranting about his 
constitutional rights, demanding to testify and talking about how he had been 
mutilating himself in prison.

The prosecution called a psychologist from the Lincoln Regional Center to the 
stand. Dr. Jennifer Cimpl-Bohn and a team of mental health experts said after 
months of study they've concluded that Jenkins was basically faking mental 
illness and is competent to proceed with the sentencing.

The defense called its witness Dr. Bruce David Gutnik. Gutnik testified that 
Jenkins was psychotic and incompetent to proceed with further court 
proceedings. Caught in the middle of all of this was Velita Glasgow, the mother 
of Curtis Bradford. Bradford was the 3rd of 4 victims killed by Jenkins in 
August of 2013. Tuesday's testimony was tough for his mother to take.

"How does he sleep at night? How do the people who are defending him sleep at 
night? 'Cause I have a hard time sleeping 'cause all I see is my son's face 
disfigured. So how do they sleep at night? I don't have any nice words today. 
I'm just very frustrated and very angry," said Glasgow.

Glasgow says she has to be here, she says this trial is hurting her family.

"A lot of people don't understand why, even though my son is gone, I feel like 
I'm all he got so regardless of what I have to go through, God will take me 
through it so until this is completely over. It has consumed my life but I'm 
going to ride it out and God will take care of me in the end," said Glasgow.

While the attorneys argued over competency, Glasgow said she just wasn't 
justice.

(source: WOWT news)






CALIFORNIA:

Calif. anti-death penalty initiative needs bishops' full support


For months, California bishops have been stonewalling requests that they 
announce their early support of an anti-death penalty measure slated for the 
November ballot, The Justice That Works Act of 2016. Their spokesman told me in 
January that the bishops were dealing with other issues, such as opposing an 
assisted suicide bill and a measure requiring parental approval for abortion by 
a minor. At the time, I was told that probably the bishops would not take a 
stand on the death penalty until it is certified for the ballot, as is their 
custom.

Never mind that Pope Francis took a strong anti-death penalty stance when he 
spoke before Congress; this apparently has not changed the California bishops' 
timing.

Well, the anti-death penalty measure has achieved the necessary amount of 
signatures and still there is silence. The bishops want it to be officially 
qualified by the Secretary of State. Now I'm told that the bishops also want a 
pro-death penalty measure to be certified, and then they will make a public 
statement against the death penalty, probably within a month.

This despite the fact that 4 years ago, when an anti-death penalty measure was 
on the California ballot, they took a stand of support, albeit in August -- 
only 3 months before the election. The measure failed by a 52-48 % margin. But 
this year, they may be speedier. According to Karen Clifton, the executive 
director of the Catholic Mobilizing Network, "We expect the bishops to follow 
through on a campaign after the ballot measure is certified." That may not be 
until late June or July, but it is an improvement.

Frankly, I find the bishops' reluctance to be early endorsers of this 
initiative puzzling. Catholics, as well as the general public, are increasingly 
supportive of ending the death penalty. Nineteen other states have already 
abolished capital punishment. I fear the bishops don't understand how important 
it is to support the initiative now, not later.

My opposition to the death penalty was renewed last year when I became chair of 
a SpeakOut committee at the Thomas Merton Center in Palo Alto, a lay-organized 
Catholic spiritual center. We were against the death penalty and decided to ask 
the bishops to take a strong stand against it. Our logic was that if the 
California bishops would oppose the measure early on, Catholics might support 
it -- maybe by enough of a margin to tilt the outcome from 52-48 against and 
instead garner majority voter support. We also thought that California's 
opposition to the death penalty could have a philosophical impact on the U.S. 
Supreme Court.

Our committee met with our local bishop, Patrick McGrath, and while he 
indicated support, he seemed to us reluctant to press other bishops to campaign 
against the death penalty. He did send a letter to his pastors asking them to 
urge their congregations to oppose it.

As SpeakOut chair, I contacted Bishop Richard Garcia of Monterey, a member of 
the executive committee of the California Catholic Conference, the public 
policy arm of the California bishops. Garcia said we needed to talk first with 
Ned Dolejsi, the conference's executive director. I did, but then Garcia 
refused to meet with our committee, suggesting we should work with Dolejsi on 
this issue.

Dolejsi told me in January that he didn't think the bishops were ready yet for 
an anti-death penalty stand. He also said an opposing measure, urging that 
people on death row be executed after 10 years, would not qualify for the 
ballot because the DAs and police chiefs sponsoring it would never raise enough 
money for signature gathering.

It qualified in May. Of the 2 death penalty ballot measures, the one receiving 
the highest number of votes in November will prevail.

In mid-May, Dolejsi told me the California bishops agreed to support the 
anti-death penalty initiative, but still were not ready to speak out publicly.

What now? Small group efforts have not effectively gained support across the 
state for this measure. Experienced campaigners know that it is harder to 
change peoples' minds once they decide on an issue, hence convincing them early 
is critical. That is why the bishops need to speak out now -- in unison and 
forcefully.

Dolejsi said bishops have talked about writing op-ed columns, letters to the 
editor, produce material for Catholic parishioners and conduct focus groups. 
This will not be enough. The bishops need to spend money on the campaign. When 
asked if they would, he said no, because that was not their policy on 
initiatives -- but they would urge parishioners to fund the anti-death penalty 
measure.

Bishops spent time recently lobbying and rallying against legislation allowing 
assisted suicide; the least they could do is apply the same energy to the 
anti-death penalty measure.

This is a critical election. If the anti-death penalty initiative fails, 
chances are it won't reappear on the ballot for a while. And the pro-death 
penalty measure calling for mandated execution after 10 years on death row has 
some superficially convincing arguments -- it will save the state money; this 
is the more humane way to treat prisoners because they no longer will have to 
suffer through a lengthy appeal wait, etc.

Finally, there will be a big turnout this November, with the presidential race 
drawing in all sorts of new voters. The California ballot also has a number of 
interesting measures, including the legalizing of marijuana.

Time is of the essence. The bishops' stonewalling is hurting this issue.

(source: Diana Diamond, National Catholic Reporter)

USA:

The Gratutious Death Penalty Cases Against Dylann Roof


The federal government announced last week that it would seek the death penalty 
in its case against Dylann S. Roof, the man arrested last June for killing nine 
African Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church. It will be the 2nd death 
penalty trial that he is facing. The state of South Carolina is also seeking 
the death penalty in its murder trial of Roof.

Last year in July, a federal grand jury indicted Roof, then 21, for hate 
crimes, weapons charges and obstructing the practice of religion. Attorney 
General Loretta Lynch said upon announcing the 33-count indictment: "We think 
that this is exactly the type of case that the federal hate crimes statutes 
were, in fact, conceived of to cover. Racially motivated violence such as this 
is the original domestic terrorism."

It's not among the crimes he's charged with but terrorism it was. Roof has told 
investigators he was seeking to incite a race war. A website belonging to him 
called The Last Rhodesian showed photos of him wearing emblems of white 
supremacist movements. A manifesto Roof had posted on the website said the 2012 
Trayvon Martin case had alerted him to the problem of black on white violence, 
which led him to begin researching white supremacy groups on the internet. The 
manifesto called for the subjection of black people to whites and the 
reimposition of slavery.

Citing the fact that more than 2 people were killed in the June 17, 2015, 
slayings, South Carolina prosecutor Scarlett Wilson announced in September she 
would seek the death penalty in Roof's trial for murder, now scheduled to begin 
in January. Roof has offered to plead guilty to the murders in exchange for a 
life sentence without parole. He's also offered to plead guilty to the federal 
charges, but his lawyers advised against his doing so until they knew whether 
the federal government would seek the death penalty in its case.

The pursuit of the death penalty will make both trials much more expensive. A 
2014 study in Kansas found that cases without the death penalty cost an average 
of $740,000 while cases where the death penalty was sought cost $1.26 million. 
A 2010 study of federal death penalty cases found that they make the trial 
almost 8 times as expensive as cases where the death penalty is not sought. 
Imprisoning Roof for life would almost certainly cost taxpayers less than the 
cost of executing him. In California, a death row prisoner costs taxpayers 
$90,000 more per year to maintain than a prisoner in the general population 
serving a life sentence without parole. According to the Death Penalty 
Information Center, the average time a prisoner spends on death row is 190 
months, or about 16 years. Some spend far longer.

Do prosecutors seek the death penalty because they believe it acts as a 
deterrent? There's little evidence that it does. A 2012 report by the National 
Research Council, titled "Deterrence and the Death Penalty," stated that 
studies claiming that the death penalty has an effect on murder rates are 
fundamentally flawed and should not be used when making policy decisions. A 
2009 survey by Professor Michael Radelet and attorney Traci Lacock of leading 
criminologists found 88 % of them did not believe execution deters homicide. 
Fewer than 10 % of the criminologists surveyed believed empirical data supports 
there being a deterrent effect to the death penalty.

There is probably even less deterrent value to the death penalty in terrorism 
cases than in criminal cases. Most terrorists are aware of the possible 
consequences to their acts and proceed anyway. Some terrorists want to be 
martyrs, and their execution can enhance their image and increase publicity and 
fundraising for their cause, if not in the country where their crimes are 
committed then abroad.

2 death penalty cases going forward for Roof seem redundant and gratuitous. 
While the federal case may have been filed simply to ensure Roof doesn't escape 
punishment, there seems little chance of that happening. Hate crime statutes 
make most sense when they are applied to situations where local bias or bigotry 
would impede conviction of wrongdoers. When they are used simply to pile on 
further punishment, they can take on some of the aspects of show trials, with 
the longer sentences meted out appearing unjustified. Were the state and 
federal government not insistent on seeing Roof get death, accepting his offer 
to plead guilty would provide the quickest and most economical route to 
punishment.

After the shooting, many of those who lost family and friends in the slaughter 
at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church offered forgiveness to Roof. 
Their simple example of Christian charity stands in stark contrast to the 
complicated legal measures predicated on the desire for his execution. If the 
murders at the historic African-American church reflect the dark, underlying 
power of racism in our society, the legal proceedings over those murders 
reflect the senseless and excessive costs of our system of justice, costs that 
go beyond dollars and cents.

As a society, Americans seem driven by the desire to punish and punish harshly. 
Excessive severity is repeated at so many levels, in so many ways, throughout 
the system. The government's decisions to try Roof twice on death penalty 
charges seems a literal example of the overkill that riddles our system and 
wastes both dollars and human life.

(source: America Magazine)