[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OHIO, IOWA, OKLA., ORE., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 21




OHIO:

Victim's mother reacts to death sentence in Warrensville barbershop slayings


A jury sentenced convicted murder Douglas Shine Jr. to death for killing 3 men 
at a Warrensville Heights barbershop in February of 2015.

All 6 counts were unanimous, death for the 21-year-old. Who did not flinch as 
he learned his fate. Shine killed William Gonzalez, Walter Barfield and Brandon 
White at Chalk Linez barbershop last year. White's mother Angela Ladson was in 
the courtroom.

"I'm satisfied," said Ladson. "It's hard not to have emotions when someone says 
death. It's been 3 months it's been hard."

Shine's family members stormed out of the courtroom before the judge finished 
reading the verdict on all 6 counts. Prosecutors say Shine was a member of the 
Heartless Felons gang and that an argument with a rival gang led to the 
shooting that killed 3 men and wounded 3 others.

Ladson says moving on will be difficult. She lost 2 sons to Shine's violence.

"Now we can get a little closure but I have to start all over next year for my 
second son," said Ladson. "It's hard emotion right now it really is, it really 
is.

Aaron Ladson was a witness who prosecutors say identified Shine as the shooter. 
Aaron was shot and killed four months after his brother Brandon, in the 
driveway of his grandmother's home. Jurors convicted Shine of organizing the 
murder from his cell.

Fox 8 asked Ladson if death for Shine was the punishment she wanted to hear in 
the case.

"It didn't matter if it was life or death but I am shocked," said Ladson. "I'm 
okay, It doesn't bring my sons back but I'm okay."

A source inside the courtroom says the enormity of the situation weighed 
heavily on jurors who all wanted to make sure they did the right thing.

(source: Fox News)

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

It's time to pay attention to mental illness when it comes to capital 
punishment ---- Mentally ill individuals shouldn???t receive the death penalty 
according to Senate Bill 162, it is not acceptable


3 people were murdered on Cleveland State University???s campus in February of 
1982. Frank Spisak, a proclaimed Nazi supporter, shot the Rev. Horace 
Rickerson, CSU employee Timothy Sheehan and CSU student Brian Warford. Spisak 
also attempted to kill factory worker John Hardaway and CSU employee Coletta 
Dartt. Later, he was apprehended by law enforcement, arrested and convicted.

It took 14 years after Spisak's trial to diagnose him with severe bipolar 
disorder and to properly medicate him because there was little awareness about 
the disorder before. Dr. Chester Schmidt, an expert in bipolar disorder from 
Johns Hopkins University determined that Spisak suffered from Bipolar Disorder 
I and leading up to the crime, he said Spisak was intoxicated, manic, mentally 
unstable, under psycho-social stress and being manipulated by a man named 
Ronald Reddish. Reddish was a member of an organization that supported Nazis 
and was the accomplice to Spisak's "hunting parties."

30 years after his conviction, Spisak was executed at the Southern Ohio 
Correctional Facility. No court ever considered the severity of his mental 
illness, and by the time he was properly diagnosed and medicated by the state 
prison system, there was no legal opportunity to argue for it.

This is one of many examples of the government failing to recognize mental 
illness in a capital case - violating the Constitution and international law.

What Spisak did was horrible, and there is no way to condone his crime - it was 
premeditated on the basis of race and ethnicity. But, at the same time, we 
can't take serious mental illness or Spisak's circumstances lightly. This is a 
complicated issue, and especially because of my Christian faith, I want to 
respond to it in the most compassionate way possible.

Firstly, crimes like Spisak???s needed to be punished for life for the sake of 
the victim, their loved ones, and the safety of society as a whole. Even Dr. 
Schmidt stated that Spisak was too ill to return to society, so he recommended 
a life sentence at the prison's mental health ward for the safety of himself 
and others.

On the other hand, the amount of proof that Spisak's mental illness made him 
unable to understand his actions is overwhelming. He had never received proper 
treatment for his illness, and his "friend" Reddish took advantage of his 
mental and emotional situation and manipulated him with Nazi propaganda. Later, 
Spisak proclaimed that he wanted his hate crimes to start a "race war" in 
Cleveland - an idea utterly ignorant of the true consequences and completely 
out of touch with reality.

In our society, we are against an underage person receiving the death penalty, 
because a juvenile is more susceptible to manipulation and doesn't have the 
same ability to make decisions and understand consequences as an adult. For the 
same reasons, mentally ill individuals should be exempt from the death penalty.

My heart goes out to anyone who struggles with bipolar disorder. While it does 
not excuse violent crime, it can lead to actions - when manic or depressed - 
which invoke embarrassment and shame when in a fit state to reflect on it.

Ohio's legislature is taking an important step in the right direction on this 
issue. Senate Bill 162 would prevent the execution of offenders who suffered 
from serious mental illness at the time of a crime and instead keep open a 
sentence to life in prison.

The legislature will be voting on the bill soon and if it passes, our state 
will finally recognize executing mentally ill individuals for what it is: 
barbaric.

(source: Marissa Beller, a senior Organizational Leadership major at CSU; The 
CSU Cauldron)

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

19-year-old sentenced to death in student's murder; 3 co-defendents testified


An Akron man convicted of shooting and killing a Kent State University student 
during the robbery of a Kent apartment on Super Bowl Sunday is headed to Ohio's 
death row.

Citing the "lack of regard for human life this man has," Portage County Common 
Pleas Judge Laurie Pittman on Nov. 16 sentenced Damantae D. Graham, 19, to 
death for the Feb. 7 murder of Nicholas W. Massa, 18, of Westlake.

"This was a senseless, senseless act," Pittman told Graham. She said she sought 
humanity in his eyes during the trial, but found none.

"I have a clear conscience about what I did," Pittman added.

Graham is believed to be the youngest defendant ever to be sentenced to death 
in Portage County history.

Jurors convicted Graham Nov. 3 on 6 felony charges, including aggravated 
murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and 3 counts of kidnapping. On 
Nov. 8, they recommended Pittman sentence him to death.

Pittman found that the aggravating factors of the case -- that Graham committed 
the murder in the process of burglarizing a Ryan Place apartment while armed, 
and kidnapped and robbed the residents -- outweighed the mitigating factors 
that could have spared his life.

Those included Graham's youth and early life of poverty under "harsh 
parenting," a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder and his voluntary 
abuse of illegal and prescription drugs.

Defense attorney Anthony Koukoutas moved for an acquittal on all charges, which 
Pittman denied. Barring that, he asked the judge to sentence Graham to life in 
prison. She also declined that request.

Twice during the hearing, Pittman offered Graham a chance to speak.

"You don't want to talk to me, Damantae?" she asked him at one point.

"No," Graham replied, with the same lack of emotion he showed throughout his 
week-long trial.

Graham gets an automatic appeal of his death sentence. In the event the death 
penalty sentence is reversed, Graham still must serve 61 years on the robbery, 
burglary, kidnapping and firearms charges, Pittman ruled, agreeing to a request 
by Portage County Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci to make sure Graham never leaves 
prison.

Graham's co-defendants -- 18-year-olds Ty A. Kremling, Marquis C.T. Grier and 
Anton "AJ" Planicka -- all testified at trial that Graham shot Massa during the 
robbery, which had targeted small-time marijuana dealer Connor Haithcock, a 
former classmate of Kremling at Stow-Munroe Falls High School.

The 3 remaining co-defendants face identical charges of aggravated murder, 
aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and kidnapping.

VICTIM IMPACT

A friend and 3 of Massa's family members delivered emotional victim impact 
statements to the court. They remembered his smile and his laughter, his love 
of fishing and his wish to one day own his own fishing charter.

Massa's KSU roommate, Alex Mangels, called his lost friend "a beautiful person" 
of character, compassion and a willingness to help others. He said he is now 
left to "pick up the pieces of a friendship we will have no more."

Massa's family spoke of their love for their lost brother, son and nephew, 
calling out Graham for his "callousness" and cowardice.

"Not one time, not even in a half-hearted attempt to save his own life," did 
Graham show regret or remorse for the "senseless, cowardly act" of murder, Nick 
Massa's uncle Scott Massa told Pittman. "It was disgusting."

Kelly Massa, Nick's older sister, and his mother, Jackie, both cried as they 
spoke of never getting to see their brother and son get married and have 
children of his own.

"Nick embodied everything I aspired to be," Kelly Massa said. "What this man 
took from us is irreplaceable If I want to hang out with my brother, I have to 
go to the cemetery. At his wake, I held his hand and I promised justice would 
be served."

"The outcome of this trial will not bring back my son," Jackie Massa said, "but 
it will allow my son to finally rest in peace."

(source: Stow Sentry)






IOWA:

It's time to reconsider death penalty in Iowa


It was only a matter of time before the death penalty in Iowa would be 
addressed as a result of the numerous killings of police officers nationwide 
[Will Iowa seek stiffer penalties to protect its police? Nov. 13]. I am a 
retired public defender investigator, but have always thought that the harshest 
of penalties should be available for those who intentionally murder our public 
service employees, firemen, police, parole and probation officers, and any 
other public servant who exposes themselves to danger inherent in the 
performance of their duties.

The death penalty was not meant to be a deterrent, but the ultimate penalty for 
heinous crimes such as the murder of a police officer. I believe it is now the 
time for our Legislature to reconsider such a drastic step in Iowa.

Stiffening the now existing law is not good enough. Officers Tony Beminio and 
Justin Martin and the many others murdered in the line of duty deserve more.

John Fisher, Des Moines

(source: Letter to the Editor, Des Moines Register)






OKLAHOMA:

Botched Oklahoma execution doesn't justify moral equivalency


No one doubts the execution of Clayton Lockett was badly botched. The 10th U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has ruled that the execution did not 
constitute torture or cruel and inhumane punishment.

That's welcome news. Given the brutality of Lockett's crimes, few may feel 
sorry for him. But there's no evidence anyone sought to prolong his execution 
or augment his suffering.

To recap, in 1999 Lockett kidnapped and shot 19-year-old Stephanie Neiman with 
a shotgun, and then ordered an accomplice to bury her alive. In 2000, he was 
convicted of 19 felonies arising from the incident, including murder, rape, 
forcible sodomy, kidnapping, and assault and battery. He received the death 
penalty.

Lockett was executed in 2014. Due to a shortage of execution drugs, the state 
changed the drugs used. During the execution, it was discovered Lockett's vein 
had collapsed, preventing some of the drugs from reaching his circulatory 
system. No other vein was available. It took Lockett 43 minutes to die.

Lockett's estate sued, alleging torture and other violations of the Eighth 
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The judges on the 10th 
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those arguments last week, based on 
prior court rulings upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty even 
should isolated errors have adverse consequences in its application.

"The Supreme Court's death-penalty opinions recognize that executions can go 
awry," the justices wrote.

In rejecting torture claims, the justices noted there was no indication 
Oklahoma officials deliberately acted to cause Lockett additional suffering.

"While Lockett's Estate takes issue with the three-drug protocol and the 
midazolam amount used in Lockett's execution, everyone agrees that Lockett's 
suffering arose from IV infiltration: the drugs leaked into the surrounding 
tissue rather than into his bloodstream, keeping Lockett from receiving full 
doses of the drugs," the justices wrote. "Nowhere does Lockett's Estate allege 
that the execution team placed the IV or covered Lockett's groin area to cause 
Lockett pain. Rather, concerns for Lockett's dignity and privacy led to the 
covering and to no one in the execution chamber seeing that not all of the 
execution drugs had entered Lockett's bloodstream." (Emphasis in original.)

The court concluded that the problem setting the intravenous needle was the 
kind of "isolated mishap" allowed for under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and 
"not something designed to cause additional pain." The court also noted 
Oklahoma has since changed its execution protocol, so "we likely will never 
confront another Oklahoma execution presenting the same circumstances as 
Lockett's execution."

Lockett's estate also claimed state officials failed to properly train and 
supervise execution personnel. While conceding the state of Oklahoma "did not 
employ every safeguard possible," the court noted the state "did employ some" 
and that any deficiencies did not rise to the level of "deliberate 
indifference."

Whether Oklahoma continues to conduct executions will remain a source of 
debate, as will methods of execution. But the 10th Circuit's ruling highlights 
again that those debates should be based on morality and pragmatism, not on 
arguments implying state officials are morally equivalent to the killers whose 
vicious crimes landed them on death row.

(source: The Oklahoman Editorial Board)






OREGON:

Cost to keep death penalty merits debate in Oregon


5 years ago, former Gov. John Kitzhaber made an announcement that was as bold 
as it was surprising: His voice shaking with emotion, Kitzhaber declared that 
he would not allow any executions to take place as long as he was governor.

The decision immediately halted the impending execution of death-row inmate 
Gary Haugen, who had waived his legal appeals to protest the justice system. 
But it was also meant to kickstart a statewide conversation about the 
legitimacy of the death penalty in Oregon, a punishment so rarely carried out 
that only two of 63 people sentenced to die since 1984 have been executed. Both 
men, like Haugen, were volunteers.

But 5 years and a new governor later, the debate Kitzhaber envisioned hasn't 
begun. Meanwhile, the death-penalty machinery continues to run, with 
prosecutors seeking death sentences, juries granting them and the state 
spending millions in legal challenges, fighting for the right to execute 
someone who most likely will never be executed. Tuesday's anniversary of the 
moratorium will mark yet another year of missed opportunity.

There is, however, no better time than now to start changing that trajectory. 
Two studies, one by the Oregon Justice Resource Center and one by Gov. Kate 
Brown's general counsel's office, provide some ammunition for doing so.

First is cost: The Oregon Justice Resource Center, an anti-death penalty 
legal-services nonprofit funded a study to quantify the cost of the death 
penalty to taxpayers, although it captured only some of the expenses. But the 
data it gathered showed that aggravated murder cases that resulted in death 
sentences cost taxpayers almost $1 million more than those that don't, as The 
Oregonian/OregonLive's Tony Hernandez reported. That's not even including the 
cost of housing them in separate death-row quarters, a statistic that the 
Department of Corrections doesn't split out from the overall prison population.

The second piece comes from a report compiled by Brown's general counsel. The 
report, which includes fascinating accounts of the preparations state officials 
undertook for Haugen's planned execution, detail significant legal, medical and 
logistical issues if Oregon were to resume executions. Among the chief 
problems: Manufacturers of drugs used in the lethal injection sequence are no 
longer making them or selling them to prisons.

All of this helps bolster the case for having this discussion. And while Brown 
has said she opposes the death penalty and will continue the moratorium, she 
hasn't signaled that she will drive the debate any further. Her spokesman, 
Bryan Hockaday, said her priority now is on the state's budget and that she has 
not identified any legislative priorities relating to the death penalty.

Certainly, the $1.7 billion budget shortfall that the state faces is and should 
be her primary focus. But the projected deficit also highlights why she and 
other leaders must move the death-penalty debate forward. The state's spending 
on such prosecutions that seek a theoretical punishment is the definition of 
wasting taxpayer money.

A good start would be in getting our arms around what we don't know. For 
example, Lewis & Clark Law School professor Aliza Kaplan, who was one of the 
authors of the report, notes that prosecutors don't tally the hours they spend 
on a case.

The state could direct district attorneys' offices to start tracking their time 
per case, just as lawyers in private practice bill clients for their work.

Similarly, the Department of Corrections could break out the portion that it 
devotes to death-row operations, which require more intensive management or 
special arrangements that aren't in place for the general prison population. 
The governor's report, for instance, noted that death-row inmates generally 
aren't allowed to leave their cells to seek medical care, requiring that 
medical staff visit inmates there each week.

Getting better data is something both supporters and opponents of capital 
punishment should get behind. It simply makes no sense to spend millions of 
dollars on a system that doesn't do what it says it will do. It's equally 
non-sensical to refuse to even talk about it.

(source: The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board)






USA:

Closed Competency Hearing Set For Defendant In Charleston, S.C., Church 
Shootings


A closed hearing will be held Monday to determine whether Dylann Roof, who 
faces 33 federal hate crime charges for allegedly murdering 9 people in a 
Charleston, S.C., church, is mentally competent to stand trial.

Jury selection in the trial has been delayed since the defense filed a motion 
questioning Roof's mental competency on Nov. 7, which led U.S. District Judge 
Richard Gergel to request a mental evaluation of the defendant.

The competency evaluation was submitted to the parties in the case earlier this 
week, reported South Carolina Public Radio, but it has not be released to the 
public. The Charleston Post and Courier reported that the evaluation "relied 
heavily on interviews" with Roof.

The judge cited the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and impartial jury in 
his decision to close Monday's hearing, reported Alexandra Olgin of SCPR. If he 
rules Roof is not competent to stand trial, the defendant could be sent to a 
state mental institution.

At a public hearing on Thursday the judge said, "It is not a normal examiner's 
report, I'm telling you that," and called the case "unusual," according the 
Post and Courier. He defended his choice to keep the competency hearing closed, 
but pledged to release portions of a hearing transcript that don't need to be 
kept confidential, the paper reported.

At least seven media organizations, including NPR and the Post and Courier's 
parent company, have filed legal objections to the closing of the competency 
hearing.

The First Amendment requires criminal proceedings to be open to the public. To 
close a hearing, a court must show that there is a compelling interest, such as 
protecting a defendant's right to a fair trial, that requires the proceeding to 
be closed.

At Thursday's public hearing, some family members of the victims argued they 
had a right to observe the proceedings.

"It would be unfair for us not to be there," said Tyrone Sanders, whose 
26-year-old son, Tywanza, was killed, and his wife and granddaughter survived 
the shooting. "We've lost the greatest portion," Sanders said, according to the 
Post and Courier.

The federal government is seeking the death penalty in its case against Roof, 
22, who prosecutors say entered Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in 
downtown Charleston in June 2015 and sat among people gathered for a Wednesday 
evening Bible study before he opened fire.

Emanuel AME is a historically black institution. "The Justice Department says 
he selected the [church] and his victims to win notoriety and to try to ignite 
a race war," NPR's Carrie Johnson reported.

The federal indictment alleges Roof created a website where he posted a 
diatribe against people who are not white, as well as photographs of himself 
"wearing a jacket with flags of 2 former apartheid African nations, displaying 
his Glock .45 caliber pistol, and holding a confederate flag."

Roof faces separate murder charges brought by the state of South Carolina, 
which is seeking the death penalty for Roof's alleged crimes. It is not clear 
what, if any, bearing the mental evaluation conducted for the federal trial 
could have on the state trial, which is set to begin in January.

(source: npr.org)

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

Why CIA Nominee Mike Pompeo Wants to Kill Edward Snowden


Mike Pompeo thinks Edward Snowden should be put to death. When Mike Pompeo was 
just a hawkish Republican Congressman from Kansas, that was a relatively 
harmless opinion to have, but in a few short months Pompeo might be getting a 
promotion. To the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Which has 
drones. And spies. And assassins. And pretty much free reign to do whatever it 
wants in almost every country in the world.

On Friday, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he had chosen Republican 
Kansas Representative Mike Pompeo as his preferred candidate for CIA director. 
In 1986, Pompeo graduated 1st in his class at West Point and went on to serve 
as an officer in the Army for 5 years. In 2016, as a member of the House 
Intelligence Committee, Pompeo said on C-SPAN that he thought the "traitor" 
Edward Snowden should be brought back to the United States and executed.

"He should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the 
proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence," Pompeo said 
in February.

To be fair to Pompeo, he did say "due process" in there - but since 9/11, due 
process has been proven to have been ignored by the CIA. Under the Bush Jr. and 
Obama regimes, the CIA has drastically stepped up a battle plan of manhunts, 
targeted killings, drone strikes, and even cyber attacks.

Fortunately, Pompeo's coworkers say he's a reasonably receptive dude. House 
Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff (a Democrat, for what it's worth) 
told the New York Times that Pompeo was "bright and hard working," and "someone 
who is willing to listen and engage, both key qualities in a C.I.A. director," 
which would be reassuring except that hanging out on the House Intelligence 
Community is not in any way similar to running the CIA.

By historical standards, Pompeo is certainly qualified for the job, unlike 
Trump's openly Islamophobic national security advisor and his attorney general 
candidate that was once considered too racist to be a federal judge.

At this point, Snowden's best chance at well, staying alive, is probably to 
hope that Pompeo remembers the whole "due process" part of his recommendation 
of the death penalty, and doesn't let the whole "unparalleled access to 
clandestine operations and methods of extrajudicial murder" thing go to his 
head while he leads the CIA.

Pompeo still has to be approved by the Senate, but considering Republicans hold 
a 54-44 majority (with 2 Independents usually chilling on the blue side), that 
shouldn't be a problem.

Since leaking a massive trove of NSA documents revealing the U.S. Government's 
mass surveillance of its own citizens to Wikileaks, Snowden has essentially 
been crashing on Vladimir Putin's couch in the Russian Federation (who is also 
totally chill with morally questionable intrusions of privacy. He was pretty 
safe from extradition there during the Obama Administration, but considering 
Trump's cozy relationship with the Russian President, it's not inconceivable 
that Putin would sling EddieLeaks back to the U.S. for trial, or just into the 
hands of Mike Pompeo's CIA.

(source: inverse.com)