[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., N.C., GA., ALA., N.MEX., UTAH, CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 9



PENNSYLVANIA----new execution date/not serious

Execution notice signed for Upper Merion baby killer



An Upper Merion man sentenced to death for killing a baby and her grandmother 
during a bungled kidnapping in 2012 has an execution date in February, but will 
likely get a reprieve because a death penalty moratorium previously was put in 
place by Gov. Tom Wolf.

On Monday, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel signed 
a "Notice of Execution" setting Friday, Feb. 23, for the execution of 
Raghunandan Yandamuri.

"The law provides that when the governor does not sign a warrant of execution 
within the specified time period, the secretary of corrections has 30 days 
within which to issue a notice of execution," officials from the Pennsylvania 
Department of Corrections wrote in a news release announcing Yandamuri's 
execution date.

Attempts to reach department officials for additional comment on Monday were 
unsuccessful.

Wolf imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in 2015 and state officials are 
awaiting the results of a study conducted by the Pennsylvania Task Force and 
Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment, a legislative commission, before 
moving forward with any executions.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently upheld the governor's authority to 
postpone executions. Pennsylvania has not executed anyone on death row since 
1999.

Yandamuri, now 32, was convicted of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to death by 
a jury in 2014 in connection with the Oct. 22, 2012, deaths of 61-year-old 
Satyavathi Venna and her 10-month-old granddaughter, Saanvi, at The Marquis 
apartment complex in Upper Merion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in October, according to 
court records.

At trial, then First Assistant District Attorney Kevin R. Steele and Deputy 
District Attorney Samantha Cauffman characterized the case as a kidnapping for 
ransom that went horribly awry. Prosecutors alleged Yandamuri, a native of 
India and a neighbor to the Venna family, was desperate for money to repay a 
litany of gambling debts and targeted his victims with the kidnapping scheme 
because he believed they had money.

Yandamuri initially denied killing the victims but later allegedly told police 
that when he entered the victims' apartment, he grabbed Saanvi, but dropped her 
during a deadly scuffle with the grandmother. When he could not quell the 
child's cries, he stuffed a handkerchief in her mouth and secured it with a 
bath towel, according to the arrest affidavit. Yandamuri then placed Saanvi in 
a blue suitcase, according to trial testimony. The little girl was found dead 
Oct. 26 in the basement of the apartment complex.

In November 2014, Judge Steven T. O'Neill formally sentenced Yandamuri to death 
for the murders.

Lead prosecutor Steele went on to be elected district attorney in November 2015 
and took office in January 2016.

(source: timesherald.com)








NORTH CAROLINA:

Co-defendant takes stand against man facing death penalty



Family members were horrified when they went to go check on 2 roommates in 
their Fuquay-Varina home in July 2014 and found them shot to death in their 
beds.

Police say Kevin Bernard Britt, Gregory Adalberto Crawford and Donavan Jevonte 
Richardson shot and killed Arthur Brown, 78, and his co-worker, David McKoy, 
66, inside Brown's home at 236 Howard Road late on the night of July 19, 2014.

Crawford pleaded guilty in 2016 and was sentenced to life in prison, and Britt 
pleaded guilty to lesser charges.

Richardson, 24, is now on trial on 2 counts of 1st-degree murder.

In return for a plea deal, Britt, who admitted to driving the getaway car, 
testified against Richardson.

"He said they thought they shot somebody, and he didn't know if they possibly 
killed them," Britt told the jury Monday. "He was sad, nervous...he thought the 
guy was going to shoot him first."

During cross-examination, Richardson's defense attorneys attacked Britt's 
credibility, saying he gave inconsistent statements to police and implied he 
testified only because he made a plea deal to avoid a stronger penalty.

Defense attorneys also painted a picture of a robbery that went terribly wrong.

The last person to face the death penalty in Wake County was Nathan Holden, who 
was convicted of the 2014 murder of his ex-wife's parents and was sentenced to 
life in prison without parole in March 2017.

A Wake County jury has not sentenced anyone to death since 2007, and a decision 
to do so requires a unanimous decision by all 12 jurors.

Crawford, 22, pleaded guilty in May 2016 to charges of 1st-degree murder, 
robbery with a dangerous weapon and burglary in connection with the deaths of 
Brown and McKoy.

Britt will be sentenced after Richardson's trial, which is expected to last 
several weeks.

(source: WRAL news)



GEORGIA:

Death Penalty Case Heard by Racist Juror Is Reopened by Supreme Court



Saying that a capital trial in Georgia may have been marred by a juror's 
racism, the Supreme Court on Monday gave a death row inmate there a fresh 
chance to argue that he should receive a new trial.

The court's opinion was brief and unsigned. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by 
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, filed a lengthy dissent 
accusing the majority of "ceremonial hand-wringing."

The inmate, Keith Tharpe, was convicted of killing his estranged wife's sister, 
Jaquelin Freeman, in the process of ambushing, kidnapping and raping his wife. 
He was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991.

7 years later, one of the jurors, Barney Gattie, signed an affidavit explaining 
his reasoning. He said he had drawn a distinction between Mr. Tharpe and his 
victim, both of whom were black.

"The Freemans are what I would call a nice Black family," Mr. Gattie wrote. "In 
my experience I have observed that there are 2 types of black people. 1. Black 
folks and 2. Niggers."

"Because I knew the victim and her husband's family and knew them all to be 
good black folks, I felt Tharpe, who wasn't in the 'good' black folks category 
in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did," Mr. Gattie wrote.

"After studying the Bible," he added, "I have wondered if black people even 
have souls."

Mr. Tharpe sought to reopen his case based on the affidavit, but state and 
federal courts ruled against him. The United States Court of Appeals of the 
11th Circuit, in Atlanta, stated that "Tharpe failed to demonstrate that Barney 
Gattie's behavior 'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in 
determining the jury's verdict,'" quoting a Supreme Court decision.

The majority opinion on Monday said the appeals court should reconsider its 
decision not to hear Mr. Tharpe's appeal. "Gattie's remarkable affidavit - 
which he never retracted - presents a strong factual basis for the argument 
that Tharpe's race affected Gattie's vote for a death verdict," the opinion 
said.

In a similar case decided in March, Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado, the Supreme 
Court ruled that courts must make an exception to the usual rule that jury 
deliberations are secret when evidence emerges that those discussions were 
marred by racial or ethnic bias.

The majority opinion on Monday noted that Mr. Tharpe faces several additional 
legal hurdles. But it said the appeals court had erred in concluding that there 
was no question of prejudice in the case.

In a 13-page dissent in the case, Tharpe v. Sellers, No. 17-6075, Justice 
Thomas wrote that "the opinions in the affidavit are certainly odious." But he 
said the majority had ignored controlling legal principles in order to make a 
statement.

"In bending the rules here to show its concern for a black capital inmate, the 
court must think it is showing its concern for racial justice," Justice Thomas 
wrote. "It is not."

Mr. Tharpe was bound to lose in the long run given the difficulty of 
challenging state capital convictions in federal court, Justice Thomas wrote. 
He added that Mr. Gattie had been drinking when he signed the affidavit and 
later submitted a 2nd one saying he had not voted for the death penalty based 
on Mr. Tharpe's race.

"The court must be disturbed by the racist rhetoric" in the 1st affidavit, 
Justice Thomas wrote, "and must want to do something about it. But the court's 
decision is no profile in moral courage."

"By remanding this case to the court of appeals for a useless do-over, the 
court is not doing Tharpe any favors," he added. "And its unusual disposition 
of his case callously delays justice for Jaquelin Freeman, the black woman who 
was brutally murdered by Tharpe 27 years ago. Because this court should not be 
in the business of ceremonial hand-wringing, I respectfully dissent."

(source: New York Times)

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

Juror questioned whether black people have souls. Supreme Court wants a closer 
look at the case



Keith Tharpe deserves no sympathy - but he does deserve basic fair treatment by 
the U.S. courts. In 1990, Tharpe, angry that his wife had left him, pulled his 
truck in front of her car in Jones County, Ga. He ordered her and her sister, 
Jackie Freeman, out of the car. He shot Freeman with a shotgun, rolled her body 
into a ditch, reloaded and fired again, killing her. Freeman's husband found 
her body in the ditch not long afterward.

It was an atrocious crime, and Tharpe deserved to be prosecuted to the fullest 
extent of the law. He was quickly sentenced to death by a unanimous jury.

But the U.S. Supreme Court rightly said today that his case needs a closer 
look. One of the jurors, Barney Gattie, who was white, revealed blatantly 
racist views about Tharpe and the case in a sworn and signed affidavit. Among 
them: Gattie said that from reading his Bible, he "wondered if black people 
even have souls." He said "there are 2 types of black people: 1. Black folks 
and 2. N------" and that Tharpe was the latter.

The high court ruled 6-3 today that those remarks provide "a strong factual 
basis for the argument that Tharpe's race affected Gattie's vote for a death 
verdict." It is at least debatable, and a federal appeals court erred by saying 
it's not, the court said. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil 
Gorsuch dissented.

Perhaps Tharpe would have been sentenced to death even without Gattie on the 
jury. But Gattie's racist statements raise questions about whether Tharpe 
received a fair trial and sentence. That Gattie later claimed his comments were 
"misconstrued" and that he was drunk when he signed the affidavit does not 
change that.

We oppose the death penalty, but at a minimum courts must ensure it is 
administered fairly and in a race-blind way.

Whether that happened in Tharpe's case is in some doubt. Georgia law blocks 
consideration of juror testimony that could bring an earlier verdict into 
question. But in March of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 
right to a fair trial supersedes such laws when racial animus influenced the 
verdict or sentence.

Justice Thomas is right, and the majority acknowledged, that Tharpe's execution 
still might eventually stand. But in America, even murderers have a right to a 
thorough judicial process and a sentencing free of racial bias.

(source: Editorial, Charlotte Observer)

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

U.S. Supreme Court sides with death row inmate over racist juror claim



The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday paved the way for a black Georgia inmate to 
challenge his 1991 death sentence for killing his sister-in-law after he argued 
the case was tainted by a racist white juror who questioned whether black 
people have souls.

The justices, in a 6-3 decision, threw out a lower court's decision that had 
rejected his biased jury assertion. Keith Tharpe was found guilty and sentenced 
to death by a jury of 10 white people and 2 black people in Georgia's Jones 
County.

(source: Reuters)








ALABAMA:

SCOTUS rejects appeal by Alabama death row inmate convicted in pipe bombing 
that killed judge



The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it won't review the case of Walter Leroy 
Moody Jr., the man on Alabama's death row for the 1989 pipe bombing death of 
federal appeals judge Robert S. Vance.

U.S. Supreme Court justices did not issue a written opinion on why it would not 
review Moody's case.

Moody, who at 82 is the oldest inmate on Alabama death row, was seeking to 
appeal an U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in March 2017. That 
appeal regards his decision to represent himself at his 1996 capital murder 
trial. After convicting him, the jury voted 11-1 to recommend a death sentence.

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision," Spencer Hahn, an 
assistant federal public defender who represents Moody, said in a statement to 
AL.com on Monday. "This non-unanimous death verdict resulted from a case in 
which the defendant represented himself, despite numerous requests for counsel. 
Our court system should be concerned about the obvious unfairness of such a 
situation."

Moody had asked to represent himself at his trial. But once jury selection 
began, he asked for a 12- to 18-month continuance so he could hire 2 lawyers. 
The judge refused to grant a continuance.

Last March the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed lower court rulings 
that stated Moody had "knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel" 
and the denial of a continuance at his trial was not contrary to federal law as 
determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his direct appeal, Moody did not challenge the trial court's decision to 
permit him to represent himself at trial pursuant to a previous SCOTUS 
decision, the 11th Circuit stated in its opinion. "He did, however, argue that 
the trial court erred in refusing to grant him, after voir dire examination of 
the jurors had begun, a 12- to 18-month continuance so that he could obtain the 
services of two new attorneys who had expressed an interest in representing 
him."

According to the opinion the trial judge held 2 lengthy discussions with 
Moody--one on August 2, 1994, and another on May 7, 1996-- "during which it 
explicitly warned [Mr.] Moody of the perils of going forward without counsel," 
and made multiple inquiries over the course of the proceedings to determine 
whether Mr. Moody was "standing by his request to proceed pro se."

The trial judge noted that Moody had been a party in 63 other legal 
proceedings, both civil and criminal, and had represented himself for all or 
part of about 35 of those proceedings. The judge stated Moody was "not a 
novice."

The U.S. Supreme Court previously refused to deny another appeal by Moody.

Judge Vance was killed Dec. 16, 1989, and his wife, Helen, was seriously 
injured after the judge opened a package that had been sent to his home, 
detonating the pipe bomb. A similar pipe bomb killed a lawyer in Atlanta 2 days 
later.

Moody was linked to the crimes through a similar bomb nearly 2 decades earlier 
that had injured his wife when it exploded. His prosecution in that case led to 
his resentment of the courts leading up to the 1989 bombings.

In 1991, a federal jury convicted Moody of 71 charges related to the pipe-bomb 
murders of Vance and civil rights attorney Robert E. Robinson.

Months later, an Alabama grand jury indicted Moody on 2 counts of capital 
murder and 1 count of assault in the 1st degree (for injuries suffered by Judge 
Vance's wife). Moody represented himself at his state trial, which took place 
in October of 1996.

The jury found him guilty and recommended a sentence of death for the murders. 
The trial judge followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Moody to 
death.

(source: al.com)








NEW MEXICO:

Gov. Martinez: 'It's time we say enough is enough'



Fighting crime in New Mexico was the topic of conversation Monday in 
Albuquerque as Governor Susana Martinez unveiled a series of legislative 
proposals. Those proposals include targeting repeat offenders, supporting 
police officers and protecting children.

"For too long, violent and repeat criminals have terrorized our families and 
communities," Governor Martinez said. "New Mexicans need and deserve to be safe 
from criminals - we must act once and for all to end the revolving-door justice 
system in our state. These proposals help get our law enforcement officers more 
of the tools they need to get criminals off the street and behind bars where 
they belong. I call on lawmakers to join me in putting New Mexicans first by 
enacting these proposals."

Highlights from the proposals include expanding the state's '3 strikes' law 
that would allow for a life imprisonment without the possibility of parole 
after being convicted of 3 violent felonies. The law has been debated times 
before, without ever being passed.

Also among the proposals is in increasing penalties for those convicted of 
drunk driving 4 or more times and allowing judges to consider felony DWIs when 
sentencing habitual offenders.

The governor is also taking aim at protecting children in New Mexico. Governor 
Martinez proposes expanding Baby Brianna's Law to allow for a life sentence for 
intentional child abuse resulting in death, regardless of the child's age.

The reinstatement of the death penalty is also top of mind for the governor. 
She is calling on the State Legislature to reinstate the death penalty for 
those who kill children, police or corrections officers.

"New Mexicans have seen officers gunned down by thugs and children killed by 
monsters," Governor Martinez concluded. "It is time we say enough is enough. If 
you kill an officer or a child, you deserve the ultimate punishment."

(source: kob.com)








UTAH:

Reality dictates that Utah end the death penalty



I recently had the privilege of moderating 2 panel discussions on the death 
penalty and its possible repeal in Utah.

Hosted by Young Americans for Liberty and Students for Liberty, the panels 
consisted of experts from the Rocky Mountain Innocence Project, the American 
Civil Liberties Union, Utah Justice Coalition, and Utah Conservatives Concerned 
about the Death Penalty, among others. They helped to open my eyes about the 
realities of the system.

>From the information presented at these events, I was convinced Utah will be 
better off without the death penalty.

Perspectives weren't monolithic, but attempted arguments in support of the 
death penalty couldn't withstand a brief review of data.

For example, proponents of the death penalty often say the condemned should be 
executed and thus no longer a burden to the taxpayer. However, the costs of 
capital cases, not to mention the extended appellate processes, are actually 
more expensive than life in prison. Some may claim the death penalty is needed 
to keep our streets safer. However, studies consistently show that the death 
penalty does not deter crime.

These facts aside, what struck me as the strongest argument for repeal is the 
very real possibility of sentencing an innocent person to death.

Kirk Bloodsworth was the 1st inmate exonerated from death row based on DNA 
evidence since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. After spending 8 
years in prison, new DNA evidence determined Bloodsworth could not have 
committed the crime of which he was convicted.

A popular claim is that we don't need to worry about wrongful convictions 
because of DNA. The advent of DNA evidence has done much to prove the innocence 
of many, but DNA evidence only exists in fewer than 10 % of cases.

How many others are wrongfully convicted in the 90 % of cases where there is no 
DNA evidence? The sad reality is that DNA has shown us how common mistakes are, 
but it's not available in enough cases to assure us of guilt.

Today, 160 death row inmates have been exonerated by evidence demonstrating 
their innocence. Their cases highlight the reality of human error in the 
judicial system.

Here in Utah, we are not immune to mistakes. Debra Brown spent 17 years in 
prison for a murder she didn't commit.

The prosecution initially said they would seek the death penalty, but Brown was 
ultimately convicted and sentenced to life without parole. Without 
organizations like the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center, Debra could still be in 
prison, and, had the prosecution continued with seeking the death penalty, she 
could be on death row at this very moment.

I believe the death penalty is wrong for Utah. I don't want to see the innocent 
punished for a crime they did not commit, especially when that punishment can't 
be undone. I do not believe in being soft or tough on crime. This is a false 
dichotomy that has no relevance to the death penalty debate.

I believe the justice exacted must be in proportion to the crime committed. 
Since the system that distributes that justice is imperfect, it cannot be 
empowered with the ability to distribute an irreversible punishment.

I have no doubts many on death row are guilty. I wish them a lifetime of 
imprisonment for what they have done.

But I am not concerned with the many, I am concerned with the few innocent 
people who will be put to death for a crime they did not commit before they can 
be exonerated.

The alternative to the death penalty is sentencing those convicted of heinous 
crimes to life without parole. This serves the demands of justice, keeps 
society safe, and severely punishes the guilty. It also allows those few 
convicted people, who are actually innocent, time for new evidence to come 
forth and hopefully be exonerated.

This would be real justice for our state.

(source: Commentary; Chris Harelson of Orem is chairman of the North American 
executive board of Students for Liberty and the Utah state chair of Young 
Americans for Liberty----Daily Herald)








CALIFORNIA:

DA's office seeks death penalty----Maximum sentence sought for man who killed 
17-month-old girl in Redwood City



Almost 2 1/2 years after a 29-year-old Redwood City man was first accused of 
molesting and murdering his girlfriend's 17-month-old daughter, the San Mateo 
County District Attorney's Office announced Monday prosecutors are seeking the 
death penalty for a crime described as "particularly heinous."

Once facing life without possibility of parole, Daniel Contreras could be the 
1st county inmate on death row if convicted of his charges since 2010, when 
Alberto Alvarez was sentenced to death for the 2006 murder of East Palo Alto 
police Officer Richard May, said Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti.

Guidotti said prosecutors chose to seek the death penalty for Contreras' 
multiple felony charges - among them murder, oral copulation of a child under 
10 years old, child abuse and child molestation with great bodily injury - when 
no resolution on his case looked likely at his pretrial conference Monday.

"Obviously we take these decisions very seriously, and it is an unusual case 
when we seek death in this county," she said, adding that the acts Contreras is 
believed to have committed on a toddler were particularly heinous. "It's hard 
to imagine a more vicious crime than that."

Guidotti said the death penalty can only be sought if special circumstances are 
alleged with a defendant's charges, noting that because allegations Contreras 
committed lewd and lascivious acts and oral copulation on the child are 
attached to his murder charge, the death penalty was an option in his case. 
Though the county has 3 other pending cases involving the murder of a young 
child or infant, Contreras' is the only case for which the death penalty is 
being sought at this time, said Guidotti, who confirmed special circumstances 
have not been alleged in those cases.

'Very selective'

Guidotti could recall at least three other cases in the 1990s in which the 
death sentence was sought for particularly violent murders, but acknowledged 
the public's aversion to the sentence in recent years. She said it's become 
increasingly important for prosecutors to choose only those cases that truly 
merit the death penalty and for which the jury is likely to deliver the 
sentence when they pursue the punishment.

"The public is less and less in favor of it," she said. "And we are very 
selective. We've always been very selective."

Contreras has pleaded not guilty to all charges and his defense attorney could 
not be immediately reached for comment.

The toddler, Evelyn Castillo, was found unconscious and unresponsive in an 
apartment on the 400 block of Madison Avenue in the Central Neighborhood of 
Redwood City around 2:30 p.m. Aug. 6, 2015. Contreras had been dating the 
mother for just 2 months when he convinced the woman to leave him alone with 
the child for the 1st time, according to prosecutors.

Over the course of several hours, Contreras allegedly repeatedly sexually 
molested the girl, including by oral copulation. When the child wouldn't stop 
crying, Contreras fatally beat her, according to prosecutors. He contacted his 
mother and initially claimed the child fell off the changing table, but an 
autopsy established his story was false, according to prosecutors.

(source: San Mateo Daily Journal)








USA:

Feds Seek Death Penalty For Alleged Detroit Gang Member



Federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for an alleged Detroit gang 
member, accused of committing multiple murders and distributing illegal drugs.

While Michigan does not have the death penalty, it can be sought in federal 
cases. Still, it's rare - with the only conviction in the last 70 years the 
case of Marvin Gabrion, found guilty of murdering a woman whose body was found 
in the Manistee National Forest, which is federal land.

Now federal court documents filed Monday show U.S. Attorney Matther Schneider 
is seeking a death sentence for 31-year-old Billy Arnold of the Seven Mile 
Bloods, a street gang prosecutors say engages in the trafficking of 
prescription pills.

Arnold, who has previous convictions for attempted murder and gun charges, was 
indicted in March of 2016, along with 6 other alleged gang members, for RICO 
conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, attempted murder in aid of 
racketeering and other crimes.

Prosecutors say Arnold, also known as "B-Man," "Berinzo" and "Killa," carried 
out multiple killings, sold opioids, and "has shown no remorse."

Speaking to WWJ's Sandra McNeill, former federal prosecutor Peter Henning said 
that, although this is uncommon, he's not too surprised to see the Justice 
Department taking a harder line on gangs - especially amid the nation's opioid 
crisis.

"The current justice department under Attorney General (Jeff) Sessions has 
announced that they're going to be much more aggressive and seek higher 
punishments - and that would include seeking the death penalty in the cases 
that they identify as appropriate," Henning told WWJ's Sandra McNeill.

"If it's going to be targeting certain offenses - for example, opioid 
distribution - then it is a big deal, because it shows that the justice 
department is using its most potent weapon, at least as far as punishment is 
concerned, to go after people who are distributing opioids," Henning said.

"They are going to use the death penalty as a means to send a message out that 
they are taking opioid distribution very seriously, and tracing the effects of 
it. That it isn???t just that you sell it; that what you have sold can lead to 
death."

Arnold remains presumed innocent until found guilty of the charges.

Meanwhile, Gabrion - whose conviction and death sentence were upheld by the 6th 
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2013 - remains on death row.

(source: WWJ news)

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

Court date postponed for suspect in Conway bank killings; Feds still deciding 
whether to seek death penalty



A federal judge on Monday postponed a court date for Brandon Council, the man 
accused of killing 2 women at a Conway bank in August, because prosecutors and 
defense attorneys asked for more time to prepare for what could be a death 
penalty case, according to court records.

Council, a 32-year-old from Wilson, North Carolina, is charged with armed bank 
robbery resulting in death, use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of 
violence resulting in death, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. If 
convicted of the 1st 2 charges, he could face a death sentence or life in 
prison without the possibility of parole.

Although Council's case had been scheduled for a pretrial conference on Monday 
morning, the public defender and an assistant U.S. attorney filed a motion on 
Friday asking for more time to prepare for the case.

"The Department of Justice is in the process of determining if it will 
authorize the death penalty in this case," the motion stated. "Attorneys for 
Mr. Council are investigating the facts and circumstances of the case. In cases 
where capital eligible offenses are charged, such as this, it is common for 
courts to grant continuances so that the parties may discharge their respective 
obligations."

Council also waived his right to a speedy trial, court records show.

Judge Bryan Harwell agreed to postpone the case until the next term of court, 
according to an order filed Monday.

Council is accused of gunning down Donna Major of Conway and Katie Skeen of 
Green Sea during a robbery of the CresCom Bank in Conway on Aug. 21 . He was 
apprehended in Greenville, North Carolina, after a 2-day manhunt.

He was also named as a suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a bank in Wilson, 
North Carolina, just weeks prior.

(source: myhorrynews.com)

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

Capital Punishment: A Defense of Justice



Not all that long ago, conservatives, including and especially conservative 
intellectuals, argued vigorously in favor of the death penalty. However, along 
with other several other moral-cultural issues in which they once took an 
interest, issues like abortion, euthanasia, and "gay marriage," to note but a 
few, the topic of the death penalty is one in which contemporary conservatives 
appear to have little interest.

This is just one of the many crucial respects in which the conservative 
movement has gone off the rails, for a society that abolishes the death penalty 
is a less just society for doing so.

Though it shouldn't come as news to anyone who hasn't spent his life in a cave 
on a deserted island, it bears repeating all of the same:

Monsters live among us.

Cold-blooded murderers, rapists, terrorists, and torturers - a society that 
refuses to execute these savage predators is a society for which doing justice, 
affirming the sacrosanct value of human life, and underscoring the supremacy of 
law are given short shrift.

The essential justification for the death penalty is retributive. If by 
extinguishing the truly monstrous we deter others from actualizing their 
potential monstrosity, then this would be a wonderful thing indeed. But it 
would be an additional benefit, not the justification for slaying these human 
beasts.

Similarly, by executing the criminally wicked, we obviously incapacitate them, 
preventing them from ever harming again the hair on the head of anyone else. 
This too is occasion for the rest of us to express sighs of relief. Still, 
incapacitation is not and cannot be the rationale for capital punishment.

Nor can there be any moral weight to an argument designed to justify capital 
punishment on the grounds that it could be cheaper to dispose of a convicted 
criminal's life than to care for him in prison for the remainder of his 
existence.

No, only if a convicted criminal deserves to be executed is it just to execute 
him, only if the death penalty is a criminal's just desserts are we justified 
in administering it to him.

There is one fundamental problem shared by the arguments from deterrence, 
incapacitation, and economic advantage that militates decisively against them:

They all objectify the criminal.

For as unquestionably detestable, for as truly evil, is the rapist and murderer 
of children, he remains a person, a subject. Even all of his wickedness is 
incapable of divesting him of his moral standing by rendering him a mere thing, 
an object, a literal animal. And it's a good thing too, for unless this was the 
case, we would have no grounds for administering any punishments, capital or 
otherwise.

The arguments from deterrence, incapacitation, and economic advantage, while 
they obviously and inescapably involve depriving the criminal of something of 
value, namely his life, by harming him, they have nothing to do with 
punishment. That harm and deprivation are not morally synonymous with 
punishment can be gotten readily enough by consideration of the fact that, say, 
terrorists, while harming and depriving their victims, cannot be said to punish 
them.

The notion of punishment is inextricably linked to the concepts of wrong-doing 
and dessert. To put it another way, the idea of punishment is, logically, 
entailed by and in turn entails the larger idea of justice.

This is crucial. What it means is that while we dispose of things, like 
automobiles, when they become prohibitively expensive to maintain; use things, 
like barbed-wire fences, to deter criminals; and incapacitate by killing rabid 
animals, only persons, beings with intelligence and will, the capability to 
have chosen differently than they did in fact choose, can be the subjects of 
punishment, for only persons are moral agents.

Murderers must be put to death, the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant 
memorably remarked. Even if the members of society were about to dissolve their 
bonds and go their separate ways, Kant argued, thereby rendering considerations 
of deterrence, incapacitation, and economics mute, it would nevertheless be 
profoundly unjust if they permitted the convicted murderers in their midst to 
live.

The duty to do justice is the duty to give what is owed. In giving to people 
what they deserve to be given, we recognize their choices. And in recognizing 
their choices, we affirm their personhood, their dignity as persons.

We affirm that they are not animals whose murderous acts resulted from impulse 
or instinct, or combinations of material particles whose bloody behavior was 
determined by causal forces - poverty, "racism," child abuse, "mental 
sickness," etc.- that were beyond their control.

In underscoring the dignity of human life by executing those who are guilty of 
capital offenses, a society at once supplies justice to both the specific 
victims of the violent criminals whose lives it ends as well as to every other 
member of society indirectly assaulted by these thugs.

What we commonly call "society" is, more accurately, a legal association, an 
association whose members are held together by laws. Laws are the terms that 
distinguish what we refer to as a civil association from other types of 
association. Thus, every crime, every act of lawlessness, is a repudiation of 
the civil association, a machete attack on the tie that binds the associates 
together.

Every crime is an attack against every citizen. So, every citizen deserves that 
criminals, outlaws, be punished proportionally to their crimes.

And those whose attacks against the associates of the legal order are most 
egregious deserve the harshest of punishments.

The objection that justice is met by imprisoning for life these bloodthirsty 
predators fails. By incarcerating, say, a serial murderer for the remainder of 
his existence, we not only allow him to live; his victims, both those who he 
harmed directly as well as every other member of society, are now forced to 
care for him.

This merciless killer now becomes the ward of his victims.

This is not justice. This is gross injustice. It is cruel.

To prevent this cruelty, capital offenders, as Kant said, must die.

(source: townhall.com)