Spring 2004 Winter 2004 Summer 2005 Autumn 2005
THE FORUM
A Message from our President
Marty Lieberman
Several district attorneys criticized Governor
Mitt Romney's proposal to establish what he insisted would be a nearly foolproof
death penalty system, with the prosecutors saying yesterday that the troubled
state medical examiner's office and State Police crime laboratory can barely
carry out current responsibilities, let alone make sure that innocent people
don't end up on death row.
Boston Globe, May 5, 2004
As if we needed more reason to eradicate the death penalty, recent events in Massachusetts and San Francisco display the brutal politics behind capital punishment.
A police officer was recently killed in a crime plagued section of San Francisco. Although the Police Officer’s Association backed district attorney Kamala Harris in the previous election, and knew that the candidate they backed was opposed to the death penalty (she openly proclaimed her opposition to the death penalty during the campaign in a city where 70% of the voters oppose capital punishment), they have mounted political pressure since her announcement declining pursuit of the death penalty for the accused. So now, both the California Attorney General and the United States Attorney, at the request of Senator Boxer, will review the case and, possibly, take over the prosecution to appease the politically powerful police officer’s association. Even Senator Feinstein, seizing a political moment at the officer’s funeral, called for the death penalty during her remarks. Emboldened by this political moment, the police association, which had previously supported (albeit begrudgingly) the decision to forego capital punishment, put pressure on Attorney General Locklear and the United States Attorney to review the charging decision.
Ms. Harris, despite the pressure, bravely wrote: “To those who want this defendant put to death, let me say simply that there can be no exception to principle.” Unfortunately, principle and politics clash. Enter Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, seeking greater political pull within the Republican Party (and reportedly with national aspirations), has offered a “fool proof” death penalty scheme. His proposal would require proof beyond all doubt, scientific evidence, and ensure that only a small minority of murderers are sentenced to death. The prosecutors, however, candidly admit they cannot ensure innocent people don’t end up on death row. Indeed, Boston is second only to Chicago in wrongful convictions and there is a call to create an Innocence Commission to review nearly two dozen cases of wrongful convictions. Nevertheless, Romney apparently believes that his political future depends on foisting capital punishment upon a State which has not executed anyone since 1947.
Even the district attorneys in Massachusetts do not want the death penalty. In addition to concern about the innocents, they consider the high cost of prosecution and the potential for human error no matter how much scientific evidence is collected. “Let’s fix what’s wrong first,” said one Republican District Attorney.
The politicization of the death penalty is just one more reason to end the barbaric practice. The United States Government has, in recent history, sought the death penalty in very select cases - for example, Timothy McVeigh. The current administration, however, has taken away all discretion from local prosecutors who know their community. Rather, the decision to kill is made in Washington, in ever increasing numbers, and over the objections of the local prosecutors. They even required prosecutors in Puerto Rico, which does not have its own death penalty, to seek the death penalty. In most of these cases, including the Puerto Rico case, the jury refuses to impose the death penalty but Ashcroft and crew still don’t get it.
Governor Romney has higher political aspirations but comes from a State which does not have a death penalty. The people of San Francisco elected a district attorney who, during her campaign, stated that she was opposed to the death penalty. And the Department of Justice is imposing its own political agenda on local prosecutors and jurisdictions which do not want the death penalty. The politics of death is disgraceful and those who play its ugly game should be embarrassed by their insipid degradation of human life.
BOOK REVIEW by Rudy Gerber
Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, 2003). By Scott Turow
Scott Turow has led the literary life many of us would have liked, a life that shows no signs of diminishing but, instead, of expanding into new areas. Years ago he published his account of first year law school at Harvard; a misery-laden odyssey entitled One L. Since becoming a lawyer, and while working as a US Attorney and later as a private practitioner in Chicago, he began publishing a series of first-rate best sellers on legal topics: Presumed Innocent, the Burden of Proof, Pleading Guilty, the Laws of Our Fathers, Personal Injuries, and Reversible Errors. Many Chicago train riders know him as the intense fellow on the commuter train compulsively scribbling notes and dialogue on legal pads. Now, in this latest and shortest volume, Turow turns his attention not to fiction but to the real hard-knock life of those caught up in the criminal justice system and its death row. In this vivid rendition of the evolution of his personal views on the death penalty, he describes his experiences with capital punishment both as a defense attorney representing men on death row and also as a member of the Illinois Death Penalty Commission set up by then Governor George Ryan to investigate that state's troubled administration of the death penalty. Dedicated to four of his personal lawyer friends, this latest and most personal book tells the history of our nation's ambivalent relationship with the "ultimate punishment" of death and how our legal system seems to have tumbled off the tracks in his own state and others en route to the death house. He also discusses the potent reasons for and against capital punishment, with special attention to the views of family members who have suffered the killing of a loved one. He tells powerful stories beyond raw statistics about prosecutorial and judicial corruption as he moves from the governor's mansion to the Illinois death house.
Written with a lawyer's unique literary skills, and showing the anguished evolution of his own views about capital punishment from supporter to opponent, Ultimate Punishment takes its readers to the very heart of the illusions in our legal system and in the minds of many death proponents, especially those holding political office.. It is a voyage that helps us understand why the law in general and capital punishment in particular can never give us the emotional closure so often promised.
ARIZONA DEATH PENALTY FORUM HOLDS ITS FIRST ANNUAL MEETING
On April 27th, 22 members of the Arizona Death Penalty Forum gathered for the organization’s first annual meeting. For the founding members, it was hard to believe that a year had past since hatching the idea for an organization based in Phoenix that would be dedicated to ending the death penalty in Arizona through public education and advocacy.
Marty Lieberman, Board President, provided the annual report and members were amazed to recall all of the work that has been done in the last 12 months:
For the coming year, the goals of the organization include:
All in attendance agreed that the premier year for the organization had set a solid foundation to continue the dedicated work of the members to end the death penalty in Arizona.
The election of Board members was held and the following are Board members for 2004-2005:
Marty Lieberman (Current President), Seth Apfel, Dale Baich, Eleanor Eisenberg, Rudy Gerber, Alfredo Gutierrez, Elizabeth McCleary-Kiffe, Karen Novachek, Rich Robertson, Kathy Saile, Kyrsten Sinema, John Stookey
Following the election, was a short report and discussion led by Dale Baich, head of the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Public Defender’s Office. Baich is part of the defense team representing Mr. Summerlin, an AZ death row inmate. Baich’s report was a first-hand account of the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Schriro vs. Summerlin case. The Summerlin case will decide whether Ring vs. Arizona applies retroactively to defendants on death row prior to the Ring decision. In Arizona, 86 people are affected and 111 people nationwide. Baich said that many who attended felt the oral arguments went very well, but that most of the justices had their minds made up already. It seems that Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote in this case. A decision is expected by the end of June.
Then, last but not least, the new education program was debuted! Kathy Saile did the mock presentation and members provided valuable critiques as to the strong points of the program and made great suggestions on making the program even better. The program is about a one-hour PowerPoint presentation that can be adapted for different audiences. The program includes an extensive manual for presenters, which includes talking points, facts about the death penalty and how to answer difficult questions.
Judicial Update
On April 19, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in an Arizona case that may impact the death sentences of 111 prisoners nationwide.
The case, Schriro v. Summerlin, was argued before a packed courtroom by Assistant Federal Public Defender Ken Murray, representing Warren Summerlin, and Assistant Attorney General John Todd, representing the state of Arizona. The pre-argument hype and suspense was quickly dashed when the usually active Justices appeared reserved in their questioning during the one hour oral argument.
On Sept. 2, 2003, because of a constitutional defect in Arizona’s capital sentencing procedure, the Ninth Circuit vacated Warren’s death sentence. The Ninth Circuit held that Ring v. Arizona, a Supreme Court decision that held that juries, not judges, must find facts that make a person eligible for a death penalty, applied retroactively in Warren’s case. The state of Arizona asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
The question before the Supreme Court in Summerlin is really very simple. Should Ring v. Arizona—which held that under the Constitution, juries, not judges, are required to make findings of fact that make a person eligible for the death penalty—be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review?
In all criminal matters, a case becomes final after the state’s highest court reviews the case on appeal. After the direct appeal—in all criminal matters—the prisoner has the right to seek post-conviction review in the state courts and habeas corpus relief in the federal courts. These proceedings are known as collateral review proceedings.
In 1983 in his appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, Warren Summerlin first raised the claim that the Sixth Amendment required a jury to determine the factual questions that lead to the imposition of the death penalty. He continued to raise this claim as his case progressed. In 2002 in the Ring case, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment has always required a jury to make the factual findings that make a person death eligible.
Ultimately, the argument before the Supreme Court on April 19 involves a fair application of Constitutional guarantees upheld in Ring. If a prisoner whose case was on direct appeal when Ring was decided by the Supreme Court was entitled to a new sentencing hearing before a jury, why should a prisoner whose case is at a later stage of review be entitled to anything less? A decision by the Court is expected in mid to late June.
JOURNEY OF HOPE TOUR
The city of Phoenix was honored when Abe Bonowitz, Bill Pelke and Juan Melendez from the Journey of Hope Tour paid a visit March 25th thru the 28th.
Abe Bonowitz is the director and co-founder of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (CUADP) and the most passionate and committed abolitionist one could ever meet. Mr. Bonowitz began by talking about the Journey of Hope’s vision and how we, the public, can be instrumental in the abolition movement.
Bill Pelke, whose grandmother was violently murdered in her home by teenage girls, one of which she knew, was the next guest to speak. Mr. Pelke is a member of Murder Victim’s Families for Reconciliation (MVFR) and one of the co-founders of the Journey of Hope Tour. He spoke about his love and admiration for his grandmother and his journey towards forgiveness for the girls who murdered his grandmother.
Juan Melendez was the last to speak, but by the reaction of the audience, the most moving. Mr. Melendez was exonerated from Florida’s death row after 17 years for a crime he never committed. He spoke about how his journey from his home in Puerto Rico to prison and how he learned to forgive his accusers and live his life in a peaceful, compassionate way despite the horrific, violent life he spent on death row.
To learn more about the Journey of Hope Tour please visit the website at www.journeyofhope.org. You can also find more information about Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (CUADP) at www.cuadp.org
Death Penalty Quiz
The death penalty saves taxpayers money because it is cheaper to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.
Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, more black people have been executed than white people.
After the Supreme Court allowed the death penalty to resume in 1976, the first person to be executed was Gary Gilmore in Utah by a firing squad.
Since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S., between 5 and 10 people have been released from death row because they were innocent.
In most states with the death penalty, you could be executed even if you suffer from mental retardation.
If you commit a crime in certain states like Massachusetts or Wisconsin, you cannot receive the death penalty.
Hanging has not been used as a method of execution in the United States for over 30 years.
When the police chiefs of the U.S. were polled on their views about ways to lower the crime rate, only 1% named the death penalty as their top priority in reducing violent crime.
No woman has been executed in the U.S. for over 25 years.
The Supreme Court has said that defendants who were 16 or 17-years-old at the time of their crime can receive the death penalty.
Answers in our next issue
Source: Death Penalty Information Center
The Arizona Death Penalty Forum has a Speaker's Bureau available for your upcoming meetings and events.
Please email Marty Lieberman @ marty@azdeathpenalty.org for more information.
MISSION STATEMENT
The Arizona Death Penalty Forum is dedicated to ending the death penalty in Arizona through public education and advocacy.
ARIZONA DEATH PENALTY FORUM
The Arizona Death Penalty Forum (AzDPF) is a collection of Arizona activists, educators, legal professionals, policy makers, civic/religious leaders, and concerned citizens who are united in discourse and civic engagement pursuing the balancing of ethics with justice by calling for an immediate end to Capital Punishment in Arizona.
My Advice to the
Serial Murderer-
Inspired by the Green River Killer
By Seth Apfel
On December 18,
Gary Ridgeway was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to murdering
forty-eight women (mostly prostitutes and runaways) in a notorious killing spree
which earned him the nickname "The Green River Killer." If there ever was a
case in which the death penalty appeared to be appropriate, it was this one;
there is no question as to innocence, since Ridgeway confessed and pled guilty.
The murders were brutal, heinous and random, and the killer prolific,
unrepentant, and clearly way beyond rehabilitation. So, what conclusions should
we draw from the life sentence which was imposed in lieu of death? That the
more successful and elusive one is as a killer the less likely capital
punishment is to be imposed? That an admission of guilt equates to avoidance of
the ultimate punishment? That the socio-economics and demographics of one’s
victims is a determining factor?
The reason, according to the prosecutors, that Ridgeway was spared
the death penalty is that he agreed to plead guilty and, in so doing, to assist
law enforcement in locating the bodies of some of his undiscovered victims.
Such a plea agreement leads one to a bizarre implication: if one is particularly
efficacious and elusive in his or her murderous endeavors, the death penalty can
be avoided. So all you psychopaths take notice - hide the remains of your
victims really well, take care not to leave any evidence of your identity, and
you just might get the deal of a lifetime should justice ever catch up to you.
Successfully foiling those who investigate your crimes will leave you with the
ultimate bargaining chip to avoid the death penalty.
By far the objection I come up against most often in arguing
against the death penalty, an objection typified by the Green River case, is
"what about the serial killer about whose guilt there is no doubt?" The
questions still lingering about the guilt of alleged notorious mass murderers
such as Albert DeSalvo (the Boston Strangler) and Wayne Williams (the
Atlanta
child murders) demonstrate definitively that doubt can still persist even in
such high profile, seemingly airtight cases. What about an instance in which
the killer confesses, you ask? Overwhelmingly, the odds are that the death
penalty will not be applied. Ridgeway is a perfect example of this odd trend.
Furthermore, many serial killers who do go to trial are also spared the death
penalty (Speck, Rifkin, Bianchi, and Buono, just to name a few). But without
exception, those who are sentenced to death neither plead guilty nor openly and
willingly confess. So, again, we are left with nonsensical advice for the
sociopath - in the event that you are caught, remove all doubt as to your guilt,
confess, and your life will be spared. Oh, and by the way, DeSalvo actually did
confess - it is believed now, however, that the confession may not have been
true. So we are left with yet another peculiar set of historical data from
which to draw conclusions.
The final lesson we might take from the Green River case is one
which has plagued capital punishment in all cases, not just the notorious, high
profile multiple murderers: that the socio-economic and/or demographic profile
of the victims is a determining factor in whether or not the killer will be
sentenced to death. There has been much discussion about the race of the victim
in the death penalty debate, specifically that the death penalty is far more
likely to be applied if the victim is white than if the victim is black. But
let’s take it a step further - Ridgeway murdered prostitutes and runaways, and
he was spared the death penalty. Ditto for Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono,
the Hillside Stranglers, and Joel Rifkin. Williams was convicted of killing
children, but they were black children; his life was spared. On the other hand,
serial killers who murder white women who are not prostitutes or white children
will most likely be condemned. Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, and John Wayne Gacy
provide examples. Once again, the advice to the serial killer - direct your
immense rage against minorities, gays, or those considered the dregs of society
and you shall receive longevity.
Ultimately, the life sentence handed down to
Green River
killer Gary Ridgeway is a prime example of the contradictions surrounding the
application of the death penalty. If our system of capital punishment does not
work even with the most horrific of criminal undertakings, then how can we
expect it to work with the more mundane, run of the mill, every day crimes?
While there may be exceptions to the general trends regarding the sentences
imposed on these madmen, the totality of paradoxical evidence is overwhelming.
And so, after much deliberation regarding the life sentence imposed on Ridgeway,
I was left with only one conclusion which I‘ve chosen to call "My Advice to the
Serial Murderer." Kill minorities, gays, or the destitute, hide or destroy the
bodies and leave little or no evidence, and, if you follow this advice and
nonetheless are eventually caught, plead guilty and confess. Yes, it’s a recipe
for horror; but, from the killer’s perspective, it’s also a recipe for a life
sentence instead of execution.
Calendar of Events
January 29th - Ray Krone 100th Exonerated Prisoner speaking at ASU – 7:30pm Armstrong College of Law
February 7th - SOLPAE Abolitionist of the Year Banquet 12pm – for more information contact Kathy Norgard @ norgard@azaboltionist.org
February 20-21st – Third Annual Local to Global Justice Teach-In – ASU campus
For information visit www.localtoglobaljustice.org
The Exonerated *–
Gammage Auditorium
Weds. Jan. 28, 2004 - 7:30pm
Sat., Jan. 31, 2004 - 2:00pm
Ticket prices –
$150 Floor seats
$100 Balcony seats
*This is a fundraiser for Arizona Death Penalty Forum. Your ticket price includes entry to an exclusive reception before the play.
The Arizona Death Penalty Forum has a Speaker's Bureau available for your upcoming meetings and events.
For more information please email marty@azdeathpenalty.org
The Death Penalty Information Center has released its 2003 Year End Report. The report highlights some significant death penalty developments from the past year. According to the report:
This information can be found at: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment
By Professor Frank Zimring
Reviewed by Rudy Gerber
Frank Zimring has been teaching criminology and criminal justice and conducting research at the University of California at Berkeley for at least the last two decades where, despite his location, he is widely respected as a moderate researcher and proponent of enlightened criminal justice policy, even on issues with high political visibility. Hence his latest book on the contradictions of our system of capital punishment is likely to draw attention not only from abolitionists but also from those trying to make the capital system in our country more structured and humane.
Zimring's opening salvo in the introduction and first chapters is that our system of capital punishment reflects a profound and longstanding division in our nation's attitudes about crime control on one hand and fair legal systems on the other. He points out in detail how our death penalty practices set us definitively apart from the rest of the civilized world, particularly Europe, and ally us with such non-traditional allies as Iran, Iraq, Somalia and China. On the other hand, he shows how our death penalty continues to enjoy widespread, though weakening, support in our country, particularly among denizens of right-wing politics and others who are simply afraid of crime and criminals. To these groups the hangman or today’s “injectionist" has become an agent of reassuring social control at the local level, a function relieved of the burden of government technicalities.
One of the most troubling aspects of our death tradition, the well-researched centerpiece in his book, is the linkage between capital punishment and our traditions of lynching and vigilantism. The states with the highest rates of executions today are also those with the highest rates of lynchings a century ago. They are bonded by a common distrust of government and its legal technicalities and a common trust in the instincts of the local populace who, like President Bush's attitude toward the UN on the Iraq war, simply believe in direct action rather than legal debate. Our death penalty, like our lynching of a century ago, offers its distinctive appeal in an immediacy, directness and finality that, to these groups, are rarely found in our legal system.
The vigilante tradition lies at the roots of our death machine even today. The two reflect the political and social biases of those attracted to these practices while showing a studied indifference to legal procedures and scholarly research. Central to Zimring's analysis is his conviction that at the heart of our death penalty debate lies a fundamental value conflict between our nostalgic attachment to the immediacy of local control of crime and national due process standards that, in the instance of lynching, we now profess to eschew.
Zimring also excels on another topic related to the death penalty: how much support is needed before a sensitive government feels justified in abolishing it? Contrary to commonplace assumptions about governments pandering to majority wishes, Zimring shows how European nations and England in particular abolished their death penalties at times when a majority of their citizens supported it. Abolition in those countries was achieved by the resolute decision of humanitarian national leaders convinced they should lead rather than follow public opinion, a conviction hardly commonplace in our country today. This discussion raises ultimate political questions about the role of national leaders - should they acquiesce to the values of the uninformed "common man" or, instead, try to inform and uplift their peoples beyond their instinctive prejudices? Zimring clearly implies the latter, though admitting the political difficulties involved. Concluding chapters strike a somewhat optimistic, somewhat pessimistic note for the future. The optimism for readers of this newsletter lies in the fact that he addresses the "beginning of the end" of capital punishment in our country. The pessimism lies in his conclusion that abolition will come most likely not from individual states nor state or national political leaders but, if at all, from two disconnected groups: at the top, the Supreme Court, as it increasingly discovers the unfairness of the system, and, at the bottom, well informed, non-political citizens who realize not only the unfairness of the system but how its monetary costs interfere with rather than support crime control.
One might well quibble with some of these analyses but Zimring's research on each is solid. Even those with different perspectives will find his "contradictions" an important and provocative contribution to the burgeoning scholarly research on capital punishment.
JUVENILE LEGISLATION UPDATE
There may be hope on the horizon for juvenile offenders in Arizona. HB2251 calls for an end to the death penalty for those convicted of first degree murder committed under the age of 18. This bill has not yet been assigned to committee but has many sponsors: Representatives Hubbs, Bradley, Chase, Downing, Gallardo, Hershberger, Lopez L., Loredo, Aguirre A., Alvarez, Clark, Johnson Jr., Konopnicki, Landrum Taylor, Lopes, McClure, Prezelski and Quelland.
The Supreme Court, which two years ago abolished executions for the mentally retarded, said it will now consider ending the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. The court said it will reopen the question of whether executing very young killers violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." Currently, Arizona allows the death penalty to be imposed on killers who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes. The proposed legislation (HB2251) would prevent these children from being executed but would not excuse them from appropriate punishment.
In 2003, the four-member liberal wing of the court issued an unusual statement calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. "The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote then. He was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
In other related news, Amnesty International will launch a two-year campaign to end child executions. They have named February 16-22, 2004 International Week of Student Action: Stop Child Executions. Amnesty's youth activists around the world will demand an end to juvenile death penalty and will combat juvenile executions in the United States and abroad by joining forces with other national and state organizations. Their goals are to pressure the offending governments to comply with international law, raise public awareness, and advocate for an end to juvenile executions in the 21 U.S. states that allow 16 or 17 year olds to be sentenced to death. To learn more about Amnesty International's campaign please visit: www.amnestyusa.org/abolish
ARIZONA EXECUTIONS SINCE 1992
1. Donald E. Harding 4/6/92 Lethal Gas
2. John G. Brewer 3/3/93 Lethal Injection
3. James D. Clark 4/14/93 Lethal Injection
4. Jimmie W. Jeffers 9/13/95 Lethal Injection
5. Daren L. Bolton 6/19/96 Lethal Injection
6. Luis M. Mata 8/22/96 Lethal Injection
7. Randy Greenawalt 1/23/97 Lethal Injection
8. William Woratzeck 6/25/97 Lethal Injection
9. Jose Jesus Ceja 1/21/98 Lethal Injection
10. Jose R. Villafuerte 4/22/98 Lethal Injection
11. Arthur M. Ross 4/29/98 Lethal Injection
12. Douglas E. Gretzler 6/3/98 Lethal Injection
13. Jess J. Gillies 1/13/99 Lethal Injection
14. Darick L. Gerlaugh 2/3/99 Lethal Injection
15. Karl H. LaGrand 2/24/99 Lethal Injection
16. Walter B. LaGrand 3/3/99 Lethal Gas
17. Robert W. Vickers 5/5/99 Lethal Injection
18. Michael Poland 6/17/99 Lethal Injection
19. Ignacio A. Ortiz 10/27/99 Lethal Injection
20. Anthony L. Chaney 2/16/00 Lethal Injection
21. Patrick G. Poland 3/15/00 Lethal Injection
22. Donald Jay Miller 11/8/00 Lethal Injection
(source: Arizona Dept. of Corrections)