7-19-2010 Maryland:
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - Maryland is considering becoming one of the few states to allow condemned inmates to choose a clergy member not employed by the state to be in the execution chamber when they die.
Corrections officials must balance the sensitive issues of security during one of the gravest tasks undertaken by the state and religious freedom during a condemned person's final moments.
The measure is being considered by Maryland legislators at a time when the death penalty is essentially on hold there after a court found that the way the state lethally injected its inmates wasn't properly approved.
Most of the 35 states with capital punishment allow an inmate to meet with clergy of their choice in the hours before an execution, but the majority of them require spiritual advisers to watch the execution from an adjoining room. Several states, including Maryland, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, allow an official prison chaplain to be in the room during the execution.
Maryland based its new proposal on a similar policy Oklahoma put in place in 2004, although officials there have changed their regulations since Maryland learned about them. Oklahoma has not allowed any clergy in the death chamber for two or three years, since an inmate's religious adviser showed up wearing an ankle-monitoring device because he was on probation, said Jerry Massie, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
"We had an outside chaplain in there once that created a security issue, so we just decided not to have any chaplains in there," Massie said, noting that clergy can observe from another room.
Rick Binetti, a spokesman for the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, said Maryland's proposal has safeguards, chiefly a requirement that the corrections commissioner must approve the inmate's choice.
"The security policies in the proposed regulations, we think, will be more than adequate to handle any similar situation," Binetti said.
Chaplain Gary Friedman, a spokesman for the American Correctional Chaplains Association, recalled intervening on behalf of a Jewish death row inmate in Texas who wanted to arrange for rabbi to be with him in the chamber about 10 years ago. At first, Friedman said, Texas officials were not going to allow a rabbi who worked for the state corrections department to attend, saying the duty had to be performed by an assigned department chaplain.
"We had to go all the way to the governor's office," Friedman said, before Texas officials relented in the case of Max Soffar, who is still on death row.
Florida does not allow a chaplain in the execution chamber, but the state does allow an inmate to choose clergy to be among witnesses. The sensitivity of the matter was evident during Martin Grossman's execution in February. Rabbi Menachem Katz, who had been Grossman's spiritual adviser for 15 years, was allowed to be with Grossman on the afternoon before his execution. But Katz said he could only be with him as long as non-Jewish chaplains employed by the state were present.
"I felt we needed privacy, and they refused," Katz said.
Friedman said that's an example of how prison systems could be more sensitive.
"Sometimes, it's the nature of the beast that security trumps humanity," Friedman said.
The proposed change in Maryland was included as part of protocols submitted in May to a legislative panel for review. The administration of Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Catholic who opposes the death penalty, proposed the changes reluctantly, after previous attempts to repeal capital punishment failed in the General Assembly.
Maryland's death penalty has been on hold since December 2006, when the state's highest court ruled lethal injection protocols weren't reviewed by the legislative panel as required. It's unclear when executions could resume in Maryland, where the co-chairs of the legislative panel also oppose capital punishment.
Maryland began allowing a prison chaplain to be in the chamber in 2004, when the state carried out its first death sentence in six years. Randy Watson, assistant correction commissioner, said the change was made after corrections officials studied practices in Oklahoma, where a prison chaplain was allowed in the chamber at the time.
"They just felt that that helped keep the condemned inmate calm, and it did not detract from the process," Watson said.
Maryland corrections officials decided to propose allowing the inmate to choose the clergy member when the department submitted the new protocols to comply with the 2006 court ruling. Corrections officials no longer saw the need of any restriction, as long as the commissioner approved the person after a background check and the choice didn't compromise security, Watson said.
A prison chaplain, a Catholic priest, was inside the chamber during the 2004 execution of Steven Oken, who was Jewish. One of two rabbis allowed to be witnesses told reporters just before Oken was put to death that he had met with Oken for about 90 minutes, but the rabbi expressed disappointment that he was not allowed to be by Oken's side at the very end.
Watson said that while a Jewish chaplain who worked for the state was available, Oken had requested the priest to be present.
Mississippi is one of the few states that allows an inmate to choose up to two clergy members who can be in the execution chamber. Kansas allows an inmate to choose a spiritual adviser to be in the execution chamber, but Kansas has not had an execution since capital punishment was put back on the books there in 1994.
In Texas, a prison chaplain is present in the chamber. The clergyman normally rests a hand on the inmate's leg to offer comfort and prays while the lethal injection is taking place. A spiritual adviser chosen by the inmate can watch through a window with other witnesses.
But most states do not allow clergy into the execution chamber.
In Virginia, for example, chosen clergy can be with an inmate in a holding cell until the execution, but they can only observe the procedure from a witness booth. Pennsylvania allows clergy to walk with an inmate to the execution chamber before going to the area reserved for witnesses. ..Source.. BRIAN WITTE
July 19, 2010
Md. weighs allowing inmates' own clergy at death
March 18, 2010
Senate panel calls for death penalty for rapists of children
Nothing like wasting the time of the legislature with a bill that is known to be unconstitutional. This is nothing more than GRANDSTANDING, someone wants the public's attention, obviouly he is running for some office in the near future, and that is thr real reason for this bill.3-18-2010 Oklahoma:
OKLAHOMA CITY — A Senate panel on Wednesday passed a measure calling for the death penalty for certain sex offenders despite concerns that the legislation runs afoul of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
House Bill 2965 would allow for the death penalty for someone convicted of raping a child age 6 or younger if the perpetrator had been convicted of a felony previously for which the punishment included a term of 10 years or more in prison.
The measure would not apply to a parent, guardian or someone who has custody of a child.
Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, the measure’s House sponsor, said that in child-custody cases, all sorts of things can be alleged. The exclusion was designed to prevent people involved in custody cases from facing the death penalty based on possibly false accusations.
Sen. Richard Lerblance, D-Hartshorne, said the measure runs counter to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Kentucky law that imposed the death penalty for the rape of a child.
In that 2008 decision — in Kennedy v. Louisiana — the court held that a death sentence for someone who raped but did not kill a child and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child was unconstitutional.
Lerblance said that although raping a child is “dastardly,” the nation’s high court has ruled on the issue. He said the bill is plainly unconstitutional and that lawmakers have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
“How in good conscience can you ask us to vote on a bill like this?” he asked.
Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, the measure’s Senate sponsor, said the makeup of the court has changed since the 2008 decision.
Duncan added that the measure is more narrowly written than a 2006 Oklahoma law that also was struck down by the 2008 high-court ruling.
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Safety and the Judiciary sent HB 2965, which already has passed the House, to a hearing before the full Senate Appropriations and Budget Committee. ..Source.. Barbara Hoberock
March 12, 2010
Oklahoma Legislators Ignore Supreme Court
3-12-2010 Texas:
The Tulsa Beacon reports, "New bill could give death penalty to repeat child molesters."
State lawmakers voted to increase the penalties - including life in prison and death - facing repeat child molesters.
House Bill 2965, by state Rep. Rex Duncan, would expand the penalties for child molesters, allowing repeat offenders to face life in prison without parole or the death penalty.
“The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent and reserved for worst of the worst criminals,” said Duncan, a Sand Springs Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. “Individuals with a history of violently raping children clearly fall into that category and should face a punishment equal to their crime.”
Under current law, a child molester can face a sentence of 25 years to life for a first offense. Duncan’s legislation will increase the penalty to include a maximum sentence of life without parole.
His legislation will also allow the death penalty to be considered for those convicted of a second or subsequent offense. That provision has been crafted to comply with recent court rulings.
The legislation will also eliminate the “homeless defense” as an excuse for not registering as a sex offender and allow those convicted of failure to register to receive a 20-year prison sentence.
..For the remainder of this excellent post.. by The StandDown Texas Project
March 11, 2010
Further changes sought to Md. death penalty law
Proof of the rarity of the Foxwell crime is shown here, in that, in order to apply the death penalty to the Foxwell offender they must first change the law!3-11-2010 Maryland:
Bill would add fingerprints, photos to usable evidence
Five months after enacting tight restrictions on Maryland's seldom-used capital punishment statute, state lawmakers are considering another revision.
State senators dismissed a repeal of the death penalty last year in favor of a hastily crafted compromise plan. The new law means that prosecutors can seek the death penalty only in murder cases in which there is DNA evidence, a video recording of the crime or a videotaped confession by the killer.
It appears that just one prosecutor has filed capital charges since the law took effect Oct. 1. Wicomico County State's Attorney Davis R. Ruark is seeking the death penalty against James Leggs Jr., a registered sex offender accused of kidnapping and killing 11-year-old Sarah Haley Foxwell of Salisbury days before Christmas.
Sen. Norman R. Stone Jr., a Baltimore County Democrat, wants to add fingerprints and still photographs to the list of evidence that can be used to initiate a capital case.
Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger testified in favor of the bill Wednesday before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, saying "it makes absolutely no sense" to dismiss fingerprints and photographs but allow DNA and video recordings.
On the other side of the debate, Katy C. O'Donnell, chief of the state public defenders' aggravated homicide division, which handles capital cases, said lawmakers sent a clear message last year. "We don't want just reliable evidence," she said. "We want evidence with heightened reliability."
She and others raised questions about fingerprints, saying that more judges - even in Baltimore County, where the death penalty has traditionally been used the most - have expressed doubts about the reliability of fingerprint evidence.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, a Democrat, backs Stone's plan, but it is likely to be a tough sell in the House of Delegates. The House committee that would consider the measure favors repealing the death penalty.
Five men are on Maryland's death row. The last execution was performed in December 2005. Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, opposes the death penalty. His administration and a committee with many anti-death penalty lawmakers have been reviewing and revising the state's execution protocols for the past few years, effectively instituting a moratorium. ..Source.. Julie Bykowicz
March 5, 2010
California Case Shows Need for Death Penalty for Child Molesters
Does anyone know of a state, which under their murder laws, does not have the death penalty or life without parole, for horrific crimes like the recent one in California? Given that reality, why is Rep. Duncan's legislation needed at all? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure what is the real purpose of this bill... eAdvocate see also.3-5-2010 Oklahoma:
OKLAHOMA CITY (March 3, 2010) – State Rep. Rex Duncan said today that a recent California headline shows why his legislation increasing the penalties for child molesters is needed.
San Diego County prosecutors plan to file charges against a convicted sex offender who is accused of the murder and rape of 17-year-old Chelsea King. Stricter penalties would mean fewer sex offenders on the street, Duncan said.
“My legislation increases the maximum penalty for a first offense to life without parole,” Duncan, R-Sand Springs, said. “The man charged in this case was a convicted sex offender and if he had received the sentence of life without parole, he would not have been capable of committing this terrible act.”
House Bill 2965, by Duncan, would expand the penalties for child molesters, allowing repeat offenders to face life in prison without parole or the death penalty. It would also increase the maximum penalty for a first offense to life without parole. The death penalty provision was carefully crafted to comply with recent court rulings.
“Not only would this convicted sex offender have been eligible for life without parole, but he could also face the death penalty for the charges he now faces,” Duncan said. “The death penalty is not only a punishment, but a way to deter individuals who would commit heinous crimes. The death penalty is reserved for the worst criminals and violent child rapist clearly fall into that category.”
Duncan’s legislation would also eliminate the “homeless defense” as an excuse for not registering as a sex offender and allow those convicted of failure to register to receive a 20-year prison sentence.
“Without a sentence of life in prison, most child molesters will victimize more children upon their release,” Duncan said. “By locking them up for the rest of their lives or putting these individuals to death, this legislation will increase public safety and better protect children.” ..Source.. Press Release
February 12, 2010
Panel OKs death sentence for child rapists
Nothing like wasting the time of lawmakers with a unconstitutional bill. If the bill becomes law, it will cause a lawsuit by anyone so convicted and cost the state tons of money it can ill afford. How do these folks get into office...2-12-2010 Oklahoma:
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Repeat sex offenders convicted of raping a child 6 years old or younger would be eligible for the death penalty under a bill passed by a House committee.
The bill by Rep. Rex Duncan was overwhelmingly approved Monday by the House Judiciary Committee, despite a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that such laws were unconstitutional.
The Sand Springs Republican says he feels the court erred in its decision and that he believes a new court could uphold the law.
In a Louisiana case in which a man was sentenced to death for raping an 8-year-old girl, the nation's highest court ruled that allowing the death penalty in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. ..Source.. KSWO.com
December 10, 2009
Jacques to challenge federal authority
12-10-2009 Vermont:
BURLINGTON – In a legal maneuver that could help Michael Jacques avoid the death penalty, lawyers for the Randolph Center man accused of killing his 12-year-old niece will argue that the case does not belong in federal courts.
Defense lawyers indicated in a court filing Tuesday that they will challenge the jurisdictional venue in Jacques' kidnapping and murder case. Jacques is currently being tried on federal kidnapping charges, and prosecutors announced earlier this year they will seek the death penalty. If Jacques' lawyers are successful in their motion, the state of Vermont would assume the prosecution.
As one of 15 states that does not permit capital punishment, the most severe penalty Jacques could face in Vermont courts is life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Jacques, accused of drugging, raping and then killing 12-year-old Brooke Bennett in the summer of 2008, committed his alleged crimes within a small radius in central Vermont. But federal legislation passed under the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 expanded federal oversight in intrastate kidnapping crimes.
David Ruhnke, one of Jacques' lawyers, said the only motive for the federal oversight in this case is so prosecutors can seek the death penalty.
"They're out to kill him. That's putting it bluntly, but it's true," Ruhnke, a New Jersey lawyer who specializes in capital-punishment cases, said Wednesday. "As his attorneys, we're going to pursue every ethical and legal avenue available to us to prevent that from happening."
The case marks relatively uncharted territory for a new federal statute that has yet to be tested by a constitutional challenge. Ruhnke, along with other legal scholars contacted Wednesday, believes Jacques' docket is the first kidnapping case involving an alleged murder to be prosecuted under the revised federal law.
The Adam Walsh Act, known primarily for its Internet sex-offender registry requirements, broadened federal jurisdiction by saying that any kidnapping crime that involves an "instrumentality of interstate commerce" can come under federal purview.
"Th Adam Walsh Act amended the federal kidnapping statute to provide that a federal kidnapping case could be made not just with the victim travelling over state lines, but if the crime was committed using an instrumentality of interstate commerce," U.S. Attorney for the District of Vermont Tristram Coffin said Wednesday.
In Jacques' case, that instrument was the Internet, which prosecutors say he used to groom victims and which they say aided in the commission of the felony. But not for the 2006 revisions to the federal kidnapping law, Jacques would likely be facing a maximum of life in prison in a Vermont courtroom, rather than the possible death penalty in a federal venue.
Jacques has been in prison since his arrest last summer.
"With regard to this kidnapping statute, I think the legislative history of statute would be presumably that Congress thought it was important that, given the interstate reach of these kind of facilities, such as the Internet, there ought to be some power of federal law enforcement to address criminal conduct related to them," Coffin said.
Cheryl Hanna, a professor at Vermont Law School, said earlier this year that the Jacques' case could provide an opportunity to test the constitutionality of the new kidnapping law in a higher court.
"The Supreme Court in recent years has really tried to put limits on what the federal government can do relative to these kinds of crimes," Hanna said. "Now that they're seeking the death penalty, it's probably added incentive for his lawyers to challenge the constitutionality of the law, and I think they have a reasonable argument to make."
Jacques' lawyers have yet to file the motion to toss the federal charges, though Ruhnke confirmed Wednesday that they will in the future. ..Source.. Peter Hirschfeld Vermont Press Bureau
September 30, 2009
OH- DEAD MAN TALKING
Is this a message to cease the death penalty or the method? Or could there be another message yet unseen?
9-30-2009 Ohio:
Survivor of Ohio's latest botched execution reveals breathtaking incompetence
Romell Broom achieved a macabre notoriety this past month when he became the first man to survive his date with the needle. Not just in Ohio, but anywhere.
The convicted rapist and murderer endured more than two hours of poking and stabbing before his date with death was called off indefinitely. His executioners could not find a vein to plant intravenous shunts, and they prodded him with needles at least 18 times to no avail, says Tim Sweeney, his lawyer.
The eyes of the world are on Ohio now, and many are questioning our death-penalty apparatus.
It was the first time an execution was called off while in progress, but it wasn't the first time our executioners unintentionally prolonged their work. In 2006, inmate Joseph Clark uttered "It don't work" as his handlers bungled an IV attachment and delayed his doom for more than an hour. In 2007, techs took close to two hours to find a vein and put down obese inmate Christopher Newton; at one point, they granted Newton a restroom break.
Broom lived to tell his tale in an affidavit filed in Columbus federal court days after surviving the death chamber. He described his time on a prep table as two technicians (he called them "nurses") struggled to find veins in his arms. Blood gushed as they pricked him. At one point, "The female nurse left the room," writes Broom. "The correction officer asked her if she was OK. She responded 'no' and walked out.
"I tried to assist them by helping to tie my own arm," recounts Broom. Witnesses said Broom turned on his side and flexed his arms to further assist. A third tech came into the room, and the workers repeatedly stabbed Broom in the arms, right ankle, lower right leg and right hand. Broom said he bled, bruised and felt a needle hit his ankle bone. The executioners' futile attempts left scores of puncture marks.
When Ohio prison director Terry Collins came into the room to tell Broom that the execution would be postponed, "Collins indicated that he appreciated my cooperation and noted my attempts to help the team."
Complications have confounded the Ohio execution team in one out of every 11 lethal injections. Prison officials have defended their employees, a group of at least a dozen men and women whose anonymity remains protected by court order.
In the face of international scrutiny, prison officials continue to defend Ohio's death team. "We believe they do a job most people couldn't do," says Julie Walburn, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. "We believe they do it professionally and appropriately."
Walburn says the state is not preparing a formal report in response to the Broom episode.
All states that practice capital punishment maintain strict privacy policies, with California ranking as the most open, says Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. This shroud poses a fundamental problem for states looking to defend their actions when questions arise. "With the fact that these mistakes happen, the explanation of 'Trust me, we're doing this right,' loses credibility," says Dieter. "There needs to be access, observation, to see what's claimed is what really happens.
"This is about keeping control of public perception, that lethal injection is antiseptic, a pain-free method," he continues. "It could be said that a firing squad or the guillotine are quicker and painless, but people don't want to go there."
Critics of the death penalty say a lack of public review fosters secrecy and denies accountability. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed a public-records request in an attempt to learn more about execution preparations, says Carrie Davis, the organization's staff counsel. There's no way to judge execution teams' credentials or work history, and because the state does not request autopsies of the dead inmates, there's no way to determine if the drugs were administered correctly.
"These people are carrying out a state-sanctioned killing in our name," says Davis. "These are our tax dollars at work. This is not a private enterprise. They are state employees."
What little we know about execution team members emerged in March in a federal lawsuit by Ohio death-row inmates challenging lethal injection. Ohio's former executioner (he retired in July, according to the Associated Press) testified while hidden behind a shield. He rattled off a job history that included hospital aide, paramedic and a manager for inmate vocational programs. Neither he nor his understudy — also an EMT —received training on the use or exact effects of the drugs in relation to certain dosages, according to court records. Instead, through his mirrored window, the 53-year-old career prison worker watched dying inmates "for vital-sign changes, watching for movement changes, just watching the person as I would if it was a person in my care."
Dr. Jonathan Groner takes issue with what he deems unqualified personnel using the instruments of his vocation — IVs, syringes and drugs — to kill. Groner, a professor of clinical surgery at the Ohio State College of Medicine and a staunch death-penalty abolitionist, says Ohio is caught in a "Hippocratic paradox." Those most qualified to help the state in executions — doctors, nurses, practicing EMTs — are forbidden from taking part in executions by codes of ethics and state boards. (Recently, the Ohio board that governs EMTs ruled that the state's executioners, despite their EMT certification, were outside the board's jurisdiction and thus free from sanction because they are not representing themselves as EMTs during the executions. At least two emergency medical technicians are part of a squad largely comprising prison guards, according to the Associated Press.)
Trained medical professionals are more likely to handle unexpected situations with success than the people the state uses in executions, says Groner. "People who put in IVs everyday — such as city paramedics, nurses in a hospital — they don't have these [technical] problems. For a person who does it for a living, it's like driving a car." In the pressure cooker that is the state death chamber, he adds, "you match the most difficult cases with the least experienced" personnel.
Problems with lethal injection forced Florida governor Jeb Bush to temporarily delay capital punishment in 2006 after an autopsy showed that the chemicals had infiltrated Angel Diaz' muscle tissue instead of his bloodstream. New Jersey temporarily halted the death penalty as it revised its execution procedures, but abolished the practice in 2007 after a greater debate on the capital punishment. Maryland, California and North Carolina have frozen their systems as they debate policy.
Ohio is the only state that has a law that requires a quick and painless execution, and Broom's lawyer, Tim Sweeney, argues that the state has not fulfilled that requirement.
"I think there are serious questions of whether the state is using the right people to carry out a relatively complex procedure," says Sweeney. "If the drug isn't administered properly, the inmate will assuredly be tortured to death."
U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost plans to hear Broom's arguments in Columbus on November 30 — well after the state's next execution, scheduled for October 8. Newspaper editorials have called for a halt. Ohio secretary of state and U.S. Senate candidate Jennifer Brunner recently became the highest-ranking state official to call for a moratorium.
Governor Ted Strickland's office has received more than 1,100 messages about the death penalty," says his spokesperson Amanda Wurst. She said Strickland cannot legally issue a blanket moratorium, and he has yet to issue a clemency ruling for Lawrence Reynolds, the next inmate in line for execution.
Broom's victim was a 14-year-old East Cleveland girl named Tryna Middleton. As she walked home from a football game, Broom kidnapped her at knifepoint, raped her and fatally stabbed her seven times. I visited her parents on Friday with the hopes of getting their take on this swirling debate.
Bessye Middleton answered the door, but deferred to her husband, a tall, burly man who came out onto his porch to speak with me. David Middleton accepted my handshake and listened coolly, but he did not want to be interviewed. He said that he's tired of exploitative reporters on his front yard and tired of the whirlwind events that have swept his family into the national spotlight.
When I told him that I had witnessed an execution in 2004, he perked with curiosity, and we chatted a bit more. I shared with him my haunting recollection of Lewis Williams' death. I asked him if the execution room was as dark as I remembered it. "Like a horror movie," he said.
Then he noted that his daughter was never coming back. It was difficult to look him in the eye when he said this. He wants to be left alone, he said. This isn't a horror movie for him; this is a tragedy he never asked for. I wished him the best and left. "I'm through with this," he said as I walked away. "Whatever happens, happens." ..Source.. by DAMIAN GUEVARA
September 22, 2009
MN- Federal appeals court affirms death sentence in Dru Sjodin kidnapping-slaying case
9-22-2009 Minnesota:
Death sentence affirmed in Dru Sjodin kidnap case
MINNEAPOLIS — A federal appeals court has affirmed the death sentence for a convicted sex offender who kidnapped and killed a college student about six months after being released from prison.
In an opinion released Tuesday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Alfonso Rodriguez Jr.’s attempt to overturn his death sentence.
The Crookston, Minn., man was convicted in 2006 of kidnapping resulting in the death of Dru Sjodin (shuh-DEEN’) three years earlier.
Sjodin, a University of North Dakota student from Pequot Lakes, Minn., disappeared from the parking lot of a Grand Forks, N.D., shopping mall where she worked.
Her body was found near Crookston five months later. Authorities say she had been raped, beaten and stabbed.
Rodriguez previously served more than 20 years for offenses that included rape and attempted kidnapping. ..Source.. by Steve Karnowski
September 17, 2009
OH- Lawyer: ‘Traumatized’ inmate deserves clemency after botched execution try
9-17-2009 Ohio:
COLUMBUS — The lawyer for an inmate whose execution was halted after an unprecedented two hours said trying to put him to death again in a week could be a disaster.
Romell Broom is still recovering from Tuesday’s prolonged execution attempt and is physically and emotionally traumatized, his attorney, Adele Shank, said Wednesday.
“It went so badly when he was walking in without injured veins, to go forward so soon afterward just seems to be inviting disaster,” Shank said.
Gov. Ted Strickland’s decision to stop Tuesday’s execution and grant a one-week reprieve appeared to be unprecedented since capital punishment was declared constitutional and the nation resumed executions in the 1970s.
Inmates in several states have experienced delays with the injection of lethal chemicals, but those executions have always proceeded the same day.
Shank said one option was to ask Strickland to consider a request for clemency and to commute Broom’s sentence.
Strickland said he is reviewing the incident and consulting with prison officials and others about the next step.
“That does not mean there will be a review of the larger issue of lethal injections,” Strickland said Wednesday. “That’s been settled. Obviously yesterday demonstrated that we have a problem with this particular set of circumstances.”
A prison log released Wednesday blamed Broom’s past drug use for problems finding a usable vein.
The log indicates that executioners made the observation at 3:11 p.m., more than an hour after first trying to find a vein.
“Medical team having problem maintaining an open vein due to past drug use,” said the log reviewed by The Associated Press.
Broom said at one point he was a heavy heroin user, but then said at another time that he wasn’t, prisons spokeswoman Julie Walburn said Wednesday.
Shank said she was unaware of any such drug use.
“If there’s such a thing, it’s got to be at least 25 years old,” she said. “I don’t think it should be having an impact at this late date.”
Broom, 53, has been placed in a cell in the infirmary at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville where he is on close watch similar to the constant observation of death row inmates in the three days before an execution.
“It was the right place to keep him,” Walburn said. “The less we can transport an offender, the better.”
Death row inmates are housed in a Youngstown prison and executed in the death chamber at Lucasville. There’s no precedent for housing an inmate whose execution didn’t work.
The night before his scheduled execution, Broom told his brother over the phone that he was ready to die.
“He is tired of being in prison and having people tell him what to do every day,” according to the prison log.
Broom was sentenced to die for the rape and slaying of a 14-year-old Tryna Middleton after abducting her in Cleveland in September 1984 as she walked home from a Friday night football game with two friends.
Richard Dieter, director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, said he knows of only one inmate who was subjected to more than one execution attempt. ..Source.. by Chronical Online.com
August 25, 2009
VT- Feds to seek death penalty for alleged killer
8-25-2009 Vermont:
MONTPELIER, Vt.—Federal prosecutors say they'll seek the death penalty for a man charged in the 2008 slaying of 12-year-old Brooke Bennett.
U.S. Attorney Tristram Coffin says prosecutors filed a "Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death" on Tuesday against 43-year-old Michael Jacques. Jacques, a convicted sex offender who is the girl's uncle, is charged with kidnapping resulting in death.
He allegedly drugged, sexually assaulted and strangled the Braintree seventh-grader sometime after her June 25, 2008 disappearance in Randolph. Her body was found a week later in a shallow grave.
Jacques' defense attorneys didn't return calls seeking comment. ..Source.. by Boston.com
August 14, 2009
OK- Duncan to Seek Death Penalty for Repeat Child Molesters
8-14-2009 Oklahoma:
OKLAHOMA CITY – In light of a recent child kidnapping, state Rep. Rex Duncan plans to file legislation that will allow child molesters to face life in prison without parole or even the death penalty.
“This is an idea that has been discussed before that never quite made it into law,” said Duncan, a Sand Springs Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. “However, I believe there is growing bipartisan support for this proposal and it will be enacted during the 2010 legislative session.”
The proposal comes after the recent arrest of Marcus Berry, a two-time convicted sex offender who kidnapped a two-year-old girl from her front yard in Tulsa.
Although Berry was convicted in 1986 and again in 1993 when he was sentenced to 30 years in prison, he served less than 13 years of that sentence before being released.
Since 2006, he has twice been charged with violating the sex-offender registration law. However, he was acquitted once because he was homeless.
Under current law, a child molester can face a sentence of 25 years to life for a first offense. Duncan’s legislation will increase the penalty to include a maximum sentence of life without parole.
His legislation will also allow the death penalty to be considered for those convicted of a second offense.
The legislation will also eliminate the “homeless defense” as an excuse for not registering as a sex offender and allow those convicted of failure to register to receive a 20-year prison sentence.
“When enacted, this legislation will reduce the opportunity for the Marcus Berrys of the world to repeatedly prey upon children,” Duncan said. “There is no greater crime than the sexual abuse of a child. My legislation will make sure the punishment fits the crime.” ..Source.. by Bixby Bulletin.com
April 20, 2009
LA- Death penalty hearing starts for Barry Ferguson
4-20-2009 Louisiana:
Today, Orleans Parish prosecutors will ask a jury to give the death penalty to Barry Ferguson, the Kenner man convicted Saturday night of raping and strangling his 16-year-old daughter during a drunken binge in May 2003.
Ferguson, 45, raped and killed Brandy Ferguson, a special education student left in his care when her mother left in 1990, after they had spent an evening hitching rides with strangers about the suburbs as he downed beers and margaritas to feed his alcoholism, the jury unanimously decided Saturday.
After one day of rest and still sequestered at a local hotel, the jury of eight men and four women returned to the Criminal District Court this morning for a death penalty hearing - the second phase of a capital murder trial.
Orleans Parish hasn't sent a convict to death row since 1997.
Ferguson's guilty-as-charged verdict is the first of its kind since Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005.
The jury must again return a unanimous decision to render a punishment of death by lethal injection for Ferguson.
If a single juror votes otherwise, Ferguson will receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole.
(eAdvocate Post)
At a death penalty hearing, juries often hear evidence that was barred from the guilt phase of the trial, and defendants like Ferguson, who didn't testify on his own behalf at trial, routinely take the stand to beg for their lives.
The Ferguson jury will hear one fact that was kept out of last week's trial:
In 1994, a 7-year-old Brandy Ferguson told deputies from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office that her father had been molesting her. But investigators also spoke with her father, who was never charged.
Prosecutors plan to argue that Ferguson had sexually abused his daughter for years before police found her naked, bloody body discarded by the roadside, just off the eastbound lanes of Interstate 610 that cross City Park.
On Sunday, prosecutors and the defense team joined Judge Lynda Van Davis for a second trip to a Metairie hospital to record the testimony of Ferguson's mother, Audrey Ferguson, who is recovering from heart surgery and whose doctors wouldn't approve the defense team's request to either bring her to the courthouse or bring the jury to the hospital.
From her hospital bed last week, the victim's grandmother testified that her son could never have hurt her granddaughter. The jury saw a videotaped deposition-style interview with the ailing woman who said she helped raise the girl while running a daycare center out of her Kenner home.
Today, the jury will watch Audrey Ferguson testify for the defense about her son, in an effort to spare him from death row. This time during the videotaped testimony, Barry Ferguson was allowed to sit in the same room as his mother. He has been in jail since his arrest May 24, 2003, at the scene of his daughter's homicide.
Assistant District Attorneys Mary Glass and Kevin Guillory plan to present the victim's own words during the hearing - an audiotaped interview with police from 1994 in which she accuses her dad of sexual abuse.
The prosecutors wanted to call to the stand relatives of Ferguson, now adults, to testify about alleged sexual abuse at his hands when they were younger. But Judge Davis ruled that the state can't present such witnesses due to the fact that another prosecutor in the past, working under then-DA Eddie Jordan, hadn't followed up on the tip that Ferguson had allegedly abused other girls in his family.
Glass and Guillory weren't assigned to the case at the time. Davis ruled that they must accept the mistakes of their predecessors.
The Ferguson jury deliberated for about four hours Saturday evening before convicting Ferguson of first-degree murder. The trial opened last Tuesday with testimony. ..News Source.. by Gwen Filosa, The Times-Picayune
October 1, 2008
DC- Court Won't Reconsider Ban on Execution for Child Rape
The court's reasoning can be found here and here (Justice Scalia).
10-1-2008 Washington DC:
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to revisit its June decision that imposing the death penalty on child-rapists is unconstitutional, although two justices said they would have reopened the case and two others sharply criticized the majority.
The state of Louisiana and the Justice Department had asked the court to reconsider the 5 to 4 decision because the justices had not been presented with what the state and federal government considered an important fact: that Congress in 2006 made child rape a capital offense under military law.
No one argued that point -- it seems none of the parties even knew it at the time -- before the majority ruled at the end of the term that there was no evidence of a national consensus in favor of putting child-rapists to death.
But that was only part of the court's reasoning. It also said that in its "independent judgment," child rape could not be compared to murder in terms of warranting the death penalty, just as the court had held that raping an adult did not merit execution.
Today, the same five justices said that the opinion would be amended to reflect the existence of the military law but that it did not bear upon their reasoning.
The military law "does not draw into question our conclusions that there is a consensus against the death penalty for the crime in the civilian context and that the penalty here is unconstitutional," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, author of the original decision.
He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Without comment, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they would have granted the rehearing. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said he thought there was no point in rehearing the case, because the majority would reach the same -- and in his mind, misguided -- conclusion.
"The views of the American people on the death penalty for child rape were, to tell the truth, irrelevant to the majority's decision in this case," Scalia said. "The majority opinion, after an unpersuasive attempt to show that a consensus against the penalty existed, in the end came down" to its own judgment that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments renders capital punishment unacceptable for the crime of rape.
Scalia continued: "Of course, the Constitution contemplates no such thing; the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read 'no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.' " The June decision was among the court's most controversial of the term. Both presidential candidates criticized it.
The decision overturned the death penalty for Patrick Kennedy, 43, who was convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana in 1998. Justice Kennedy noted in his opinion that Louisiana was one of six states that allowed the death penalty for the crime.
Louisiana did not note in its briefs the little-known change that Congress made to military law provisions or an executive order, signed by President Bush, that added the provision to the Manual for Courts-Martial.
The Justice Department said it erred in not seeking to join the case or advising the court of the law.
The court rarely grants new hearings in cases it has decided. A rehearing would have required five votes, including one from the previous majority.
The existence of the military law came to light only after a civilian Air Force lawyer, Dwight Sullivan, noted it in his military law blog after the decision. His report led to a front-page New York Times story on the omission. ..News Source.. by Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer
September 23, 2008
FL- Last Lake County inmate to be executed - in 1959 - didn't kill anyone
9-23-2008 Florida:
Richard Henyard could be next, if his execution for the killings of 2 Eustis girls in 1993 is carried out as scheduled today.
TAVARES - The last inmate from Lake County to be executed by the state of Florida didn't kill anyone.
Sam Wiley Odom was 20 on Aug. 28, 1959, when he was strapped into the state's electric chair for raping a 63-year-old woman and electrocuted in front of a small audience that included Lake County Sheriff Willis V. McCall.
Richard Henyard, 34, of Eustis will join Odom on the state's list of executed prisoners today if he dies by lethal injection, as scheduled, for the 1993 murders of two Lake County girls, Jamilya Lewis, 7, and her sister, Jasmine Lewis, 3.
The cases of Henyard and Odom bear little similarity beyond their geography.
Henyard spent more than 14 years on death row; Odom just one.
Henyard's case is chronicled in boxes and boxes of documents that detail his arrest, prosecution and the numerous appeals of his conviction and death sentence. Odom's prosecution and execution nearly a half-century ago are archived on a sparse, two dozen frames of microfilm in the Lake County Clerk of Courts' records warehouse.
It was plainly a different era, the 1950s in the Deep South, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.
"The law would prevent his execution today," Dieter said of Odom, who grew up in Okahumpka, a rural outpost near Leesburg.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the death penalty could not be imposed in the rape of an adult, calling the penalty disproportionate to the crime and outlawing it as cruel and unusual. In a 5-4 decision in June, the nation's high court also struck down a Louisiana law that allowed the state to impose the death penalty on a rapist if the victim was a child.
Only a few states still have capital-punishment options for such anachronistic crimes as treason and train-wrecking, but most are considered antiquated and are not used by prosectors.
From 1924 to 1964, Florida executed 196 prisoners, including 42 who were sentenced to death for rape. All but three of the convicted rapists condemned to die were black, including Odom and James Davis, who was 16 and the youngest inmate executed by the state, according to a database on the Florida Department of Corrections' Web site.
Florida held no executions from 1964 to 1979.
Odom reportedly confessed to the rape, which occurred at knifepoint in a home in an orange grove on April 1, 1958. He told the editor of the old Mount Dora Topic: "I had been drinking wine and 'shine [moonshine] and it was the 'shine that told me to do it. And I did. I was foolish and I know it."
But his trial, which took place about a month after the crime, was tainted, his lawyer argued in an unsuccessful appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.
The state attorney pointed out in closing statements to the all-white jury that Odom had not taken the witness stand to deny the crime, an argument that would be grounds for a mistrial today.
He was identified by the victim -- after authorities had shot him.
Jurors deliberated just eight minutes before reaching a verdict that sent him to the electric chair. ..News Source.. by Stephen Hudak
September 13, 2008
Is Military Law Relevant to the "Evolving Standards of Decency" Embodied in the Eighth Amendment?
September 2008
Abstract:
On June 25, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana holding that the application of the death penalty to the crime of aggravated child rape violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Three days after the opinion was issued, it was discovered that everyone involved in the case had overlooked a 2006 amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ") that made child rape a death penalty offense. This seeming oversight by the majority led the state of Louisiana and Solicitor General to petition the Court for the case to be reheard. On September 8, the Supreme Court took the highly unusual step of asking for more briefing on whether the case should be reheard. This short article contends that for the Court to grant rehearing based upon the rationales embodied in the Louisiana and Solicitor General's briefs would represent a substantial departure from past Court practice and be contrary to the special treatment that military law has historically received. A careful review of the Court's prior opinions shows that the Court has never considered military law in evaluating the objective indicia of the "evolving standards of decency" even when the military had seemingly relevant provisions. This practice by the Court is almost surely due to its recognition that when Congress amends military law, it only represents a national consensus as to military policy and not civilian policy. As a result, the Supreme Court should not rehear the Kennedy case based upon the majority opinion's omission of the 2006 UCMJ amendment. ..Source.. by Corey Rayburn Yung, John Marshall Law School, Chicago
Note: If you want to download the paper, click the "Choose Download Location" link near the top of the page. It is unknown why SSRN changed the appearance to make the download link less visible. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to email Corey Rayburn Yung.
September 8, 2008
(US Supreme) Court to explore rehearing in death case
9-8-2008 National:
The Supreme Court on Monday called for new legal briefs on possible rehearing — and, maybe, revision — of its ruling striking down the death penalty for the crime of child rape. In an order in Kennedy v. Louisiana (found here), the Court sought briefs from lawyers for both sides in the case, as well as from the federal government. The new briefing in 07-343 is to be completed by Sept. 24 — in advance of the Court’s first Conference of the new Term, on Monday, Sept. 29.
The briefs are to discuss two issues, according to the order: first, whether to grant rehearing of the June 25 decision, and second, what action — if any — the Court should take if it does reopen the case. Here is the way the Court phrased its inquiries: “whether rehearing should be granted” and “the merits of the issue raised in the petition for rehearing” filed by the state of Louisiana on July 21.
That issue, of course, is whether the Court should modify or expand the substance of its ruling in the case because the decision did not take account of a federal law authorizing a death sentence for child rape as part of the military justice system. This embraces several other related issues: Will the Court rethink its conclusion that there is a “national consensus” against the penalty for that crime? Will it clarify whether one basis for its decision (the absence of a “national consensus”) was more important than the second basis (the Court’s independent view that the punishment was excessive for the crime)? Will it make clear whether rulings under the Eighth Amendment apply to the same degree in the military justice system as in civilian courts? Will it comment in any way on the constitutionality of the military justice provision for the death penalty for child rape?
In Monday’s order, the Justices sought a supplemental brief of up to 4,500 words from attorneys for Patrick Kennedy, the death-row inmate at the center of the case, with that brief due on Sept. 17. The U.S. Solicitor General’s office is to file a brief of up to 2,500 words, due at the same time, on the federal government’s views. The state of Louisiana is to file a brief of up to 4,500 words, dealing not only with its plea for rehearing, but also “the merits of the issue raised in the petition for rehearing.” That final brief is due Sept. 24.
Under the Court’s Rules, a decided case will not be reheard unless a majority of the Court votes to do so, and the majority includes at least one Justice who voted for the result in the case. Since the Kennedy case was decided by a 5-4 vote, at least one of those in the majority of five would have to cast a vote for rehearing.
Louisiana, with the support of the Solicitor General’s office, has contended that the Court’s decision was flawed because of the omission of any reference to a provision enacted by Congress in a Pentagon budget bill two years ago. Both Louisiana and the Solicitor General’s office have said it was an error for them not to bring that law to the Court’s attention but that, nevertheless, the Court should reopen the case and consider now what impact, if any, that might have on the result.
In the Court’s decision, the Court first made a survey of trends in state legislatures, in Congress, and in the courts — a survey leading to the conclusion that there was a national consensus against the penalty for the crime. In that part of the Court opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that there was no federal law directly on point.
That is the part of the ruling that Louisiana and the federal government have attacked most aggressively.
In the second part of the decision, the Court, exercising what it called its own “independent judgment,” concluded that the death penalty would not be proportional for the crime of raping a child. In its rehearing petition, Louisiana said that the Court did not “quantify which factor, if any, predominated” in reaching its result — national consensus, or the Court’s “independent judgment.”
If the existence of the military provision “calls into question the national consensus found by this Court,” Louisiana added, “the question arises whether the second factor, standing alone, justifies an Eighth Amendment holding that supplants the will of not only the several States, but of the Federal Government as well.”
The “independent judgment” part of the decision, Louisiana added, “was not fully informed” because the Court “was not presented with all of the evidence of recent legislative enactments.”
The Solicitor General’s office, in asking the Court on July 28 to allow it to file a brief supporting rehearing, said that the Kennedy decision “is grounded on a materially erroneous understanding of federal law. Contrary to statements in the opinion, both Congress and the President have recently determined that a maximum sentence of death is appropriate and proportionate for casesinvolving the extraordinariliy grave crime of child rape.”
The Solicitor’s prepared brief suggested that “the categorical nature of the Court’s decision is particularly problematic.” It noted that the Court “has yet to resolve whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition” applies differently in military capital cases. But the Kennedy decision rules out “across the board” the death penalty for child rape. That raised “grave doubt” about the validity of the 2006 law, the brief added.
Before Monday, the Court had taken no action on the Solicitor’s motion to allow the government to file a brief on rehearing — a brief that does not appear to be allowed under the Court’s Rules. But Monday’s order extending the invitation to the Solicitor to file a new brief makes the motion irrelevant now. ..News Source.. by SCOTUS Blog and Sex Crimes Blog
August 10, 2008
The Supreme Court Can't Ignore the Facts
See prior articles here and here and here and here.
8-9-2008 National:
In the recent case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" barred Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of an 8-year-old child.
The court perceived that there was a "national consensus" against the death penalty for child rape, concluding that capital punishment for this crime was inconsistent with "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." This supposed consensus, according to the court, was based on the fact that 44 states have not made child rape a capital offense; it also observed that while the federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 expanded the number of federal crimes punishable by death, it did not do so for child rape.
But the factual basis of the ruling was in error. The court overlooked the amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2006 -- which imposed capital punishment for child rape. So much for the national consensus.
On July 21, Louisiana filed a petition for rehearing. Will the Supreme Court grant such a request? It has in the past.
Fifty years ago, in Flora v. United States, the court considered whether a taxpayer could bring a tax-refund suit in a federal district court if he did not first pay all of the taxes sought by the Treasury. Initially, the Court held 8-1 (with a short dissent by Justice Charles Evans Whitaker) in favor of the government, that full payment was required.
The Court relied upon its understanding that there was no case in which a taxpayer attempted a refund suit without paying the full amount the government alleged to be due. It was wrong. Tax lawyers around the country soon came forward and reported that they had brought such refund cases. The taxpayer, Walter Flora, thereupon sought a rehearing.
The Court granted the rehearing, and Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan switched their votes, making the rehearing vote 5-4. They, together with the newly-appointed Justice Potter Stewart, joined Justice Whitaker's expanded dissent after the rehearing.
While the court ultimately upheld its initial decision, Justice Frankfurter's separate opinion has particular resonance with Kennedy v. Louisiana. "Once the basis which for me governed the disposition of the case was no longer available," he wrote, "I was thrown back to an independent inquiry of the course of tax legislation and litigation for more than a hundred years, for all of that was relevant to a true understanding of the problem presented by this case." He added, "This involved many weeks of study during what is called the summer vacation."
The five justices in the majority in Kennedy v. Louisiana should consider Justice Frankfurter's words -- and spend at least a part of their summer vacation reconsidering the basis of their decision. ..News Source.. by STUART A. SMITH. Mr. Smith, an attorney in New York City, was tax assistant to the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice from 1973 to 1983.
July 31, 2008
The Supreme Court Is Wrong On the Death Penalty
A major problem with this new theory is, that Patrick Kennedy's crime occurred March 2, 1998, and the National Defense Authorization Act (2006) (which contained the new possible sentence of death for a child under 12) was not effective until October 1, 2001. That would raise major ex post facto concerns.
7-31-2008 National:
It's not often that the U.S. Supreme Court is asked by a state and the federal government to reconsider a case it has just handed down because it missed key evidence.
But that is what is happening now in Kennedy v. Louisiana. In that case, the court ruled in late June that Louisiana could not execute someone convicted of violently raping a child. Dividing along familiar 5-4 lines, the court held, speaking through Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the death penalty must be reserved for killers and traitors. To apply it to others, including the most reprehensible violators of young children, would constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment" violating the Constitution's Eighth Amendment.
Emphasizing the evolving character of what constitutes an "unusual" if not an unduly "cruel" punishment, the court rested its condemnation of executing the rapists of children largely on what it described as a trend away from the use of death to punish such crimes both here and abroad.
But there was a problem with the court's understanding of the basic facts. It failed to take into account -- because nobody involved in the case had noticed -- that in 2006 no less an authority than Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act (2006), had prescribed capital punishment as a penalty available for the rape of a child by someone in the military.
Defenders of the court's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana would have it ignore that embarrassing wrinkle by treating the military as a parallel universe that simply does not intersect civilian justice on the plane of constitutional principle. But a court searching for universal principles of justice in the name of the Eighth Amendment would be hard pressed to accept that view of the military/civilian distinction. Particularly when the court's division tracks the usual liberal/conservative divide, its credibility depends on both candor and correctness when it comes to the factual predicates of its rulings.
Whatever one's view of the death penalty -- and I have long expressed misgivings on both its wisdom and its constitutionality -- it's important that the inequities and inequalities in its administration be minimized. Commitment to that principle, not a rush to the center, lay behind Barack Obama's disagreement with the court's ruling in this case even before the 2006 federal death penalty provision came to public attention.
Many who applauded the court's original ruling did so not on the basis of the court's (now evidently faulty) trend-spotting rationale but, rather, on the premise that any way of containing the spread of capital punishment -- such as by confining its use to murderers and traitors -- is a good idea. But even those who harbor serious doubts about capital punishment should feel duty-bound to oppose carve-outs from its reach that denigrate certain classes of victims, or that arbitrarily override democratic determinations that such victims deserve maximum protection.
If a legislature were to exempt the killers of gay men or lesbians from capital punishment, even dedicated death penalty opponents should cry foul in the Constitution's name. So too, should they cry foul when the judiciary holds the torturers or violent rapists of young children to be constitutionally exempt from the death penalty imposed by a legislature judicially permitted to apply that penalty to cop killers and murderers for hire. In doing so, the court is imposing a dubious limit on the ability of a representative government to enforce its own, entirely plausible, sense of which crimes deserve the most severe punishment.
To be sure, holding the line at murder and treason gives the judiciary a bright line that blurs once one says a legislature may include other offenses in its catalogue of what it deems the most heinous of all crimes. But the same may be said of virtually any bright line. Placing ease of judicial administration above respect for democracy and for principles of equal justice under law is inexcusable.
The Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause should not be construed in a manner that puts it on a collision course with the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court would do well to take that overriding consideration into account as it decides whether to revisit its seriously misinformed as well as morally misguided ruling. ..Source: NY Times.. Opinion of: Mr. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, is the author of the forthcoming book "The Invisible Constitution" (Oxford Press).
July 29, 2008
Bush: Former Army cook's crimes warrant execution (Rape of an adult)
Would Bush have made this decision if the U.S. Supreme court had not recently rejected the case involving death for child rape?
7-29-2008 National:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush could have commuted the death sentence of Ronald A. Gray, a former Army cook convicted of multiple rapes and murders.
But Bush decided Monday that Gray's crimes were so repugnant that execution was the only just punishment.
Bush's decision marked the first time in 51 years that a president has affirmed a death sentence for a member of the U.S. military. It was the first time in 46 years that such a decision has even been weighed in the Oval Office.
Gray, 42, was convicted in connection with a spree of four murders and eight rapes in the Fayetteville, N.C., area between April 1986 and January 1987 while he was stationed at Fort Bragg. He has been on death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., since April 1988.
"While approving a sentence of death for a member of our armed services is a serious and difficult decision for a commander in chief, the president believes the facts of this case leave no doubt that the sentence is just and warranted," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
"The president's thoughts and prayers are with the victims of these heinous crimes and their families and all others affected," she said.
Bush's decision, however, is not likely the end of Gray's legal battle. Further litigation is expected and these types of death sentence appeals often take years to resolve. It also remains unclear where Gray would be executed. Military executions are handled by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Members of the U.S. military have been executed throughout history, but just 10 have been executed by presidential approval since 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military's modern-day legal system, was enacted into law.
President Kennedy was the last president to stare down this life-or-death decision. On Feb. 12, 1962, Kennedy commuted the death sentence of Jimmie Henderson, a Navy seaman, to confinement for life.
President Eisenhower was the last president to approve a military execution. In 1957, he approved the execution of John Bennett, an Army private convicted of raping and attempting to kill an 11-year-old Austrian girl. He was hanged in 1961.
Gray was held responsible for the crimes he committed in both the civilian and military justice systems.
Silas DeRoma, who left active duty in 1999, was one of several military attorneys who represented Gray on appeal.
"It's disappointing news, as you can imagine," said DeRoma, who now works as a regulatory attorney in Honolulu for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He said the basis for some of Gray's appeals focused on the prisoner's mental competency and his representation at trial.
In civilian courts in North Carolina, Gray pleaded guilty to two murders and five rapes and was sentenced to three consecutive and five concurrent life terms. He then was tried by general court-martial at the Army's Fort Bragg. There he was convicted in April 1988 and unanimously sentenced to death.
The court-martial panel convicted Gray of:
-Raping and killing Army Pvt. Laura Lee Vickery-Clay of Fayetteville on Dec. 15, 1986. She was shot four times with a .22-caliber pistol that Gray confessed to stealing. She suffered blunt force trauma over much of her body.
-Raping and killing Kimberly Ann Ruggles, a civilian cab driver in Fayetteville. She was bound, gagged and stabbed repeatedly, and had bruises and lacerations on her face. Her body was found on the base.
-Raping, robbing and attempting to kill Army Pvt. Mary Ann Lang Nameth in her barracks at Fort Bragg on Jan. 3, 1987. She testified against Gray during the court-martial and identified him as her assailant. Gray raped her and stabbed her several times in the neck and side. Nameth suffered a laceration of the trachea and a collapsed or punctured lung.
Gray has appealed his case through the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (then known as the U.S. Army Court of Military Review) and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services. In 2001, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. ..News Source.. by DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
