Thanks to Michael Landauer of the Texas Death Penalty blog for the very nice mention the other day. Michael quotes from several of our recent posts and writes:
A lot has been written this week about the notion of seeking closure in the DC sniper execution. Today's Viewpoints page had an interesting column that tackled the subject. Naseem Rakha wrote: "Of all the arguments in support of capital punishment, perhaps the most emotionally compelling is that it provides "closure" for the loved ones of murder victims."
But real closure is elusive and deeply personal. It's unmeasurable, if it exists. That's true for any kind of grief, I suppose.
I've been very impressed with Susannah Sheffer's blogs on this topic in the past few weeks. She really seems to have a grasp on the current topics dealing with closure over on the Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights blog.
I in turn highly recommend the Dallas Morning News death penalty blog, the description of which reads: This blog is the leading forum for people on all sides of the debate to discuss issues related to the death penalty. It includes news from Dallas Morning News reporters as well as commentary from members of the editorial board, which opposes the death penalty.
To read more from victims' families questioning the idea of closure, see this special issue of MVFHR's newsletter, which focuses on that topic.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
At Amnesty Conference
MVFHR will have a presence at Amnesty International's Northeast Regional Conference this weekend, via a Saturday evening plenary presentation that will feature Bob Curley, whose son Jeffrey was murdered 12 years ago, Brian MacQuarrie, whose new book, The Ride, chronicles Bob Curley's journey from supporter of the death penalty to opponent, and Renny Cushing, MVFHR's Executive Director. If any blog readers are in attendance, do come over and say hello.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Evidence Not Heard
This Reuters piece about efforts to stop the execution of John Muhammad includes a mention of MVFHR and a link to the clemency request, which includes a 4-minute oral testimony from MVFHR about victim opposition to the death penalty for people with severe mental illness. (To hear the testimony, click the link above and then click on "announcements.")
John Muhammad Files for Stay of Execution with U.S. Supreme Court
Evidence of "Severe Mental Illness" Not Heard by Jury
In a two-track effort to stop the November 10 execution of John Allen Muhammad, sentenced to death after his conviction for 10 killings 7 years ago, Attorney Jon Sheldon has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court and a motion for a stay of execution so that the court can review compelling evidence of Muhammad`s "severe mental illness"
Sheldon also requested that Governor Tim Kaine use his powers of clemency to commute Muhammad`s sentence to life without parole because of the severe mental illness. "The public has been protected from John Muhammad for the past 7 years," said Sheldon, "and a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole would insure that the public would continue to be protected."
"Execution is simply not justified in this case," Sheldon said, "and it is because of John Muhammad`s severe mental illness." Sheldon also stated that "the jurors would not have sentenced him to death if they had received clear instructions and known of his severe mental illness." Life in prison without the possibility of parole has and will keep the people of Virginia safe.
Sheldon said that a psychiatrist has diagnosed Muhammad as "psychotic, delusional and paranoid and that he suffers from schizophrenia."
"This diagnosis" said Sheldon, "is confirmed by objective evidence." Sheldon said that neuropsychological brain imaging applications have demonstrated that John Muhammad has neuropsychological deficits that are consistent with schizophrenia, and point to "brain dysfunction."
Sheldon also said that MRI brain scans of John Muhammad show that "he has three congenital malformations in his brain, two of which are found with greater frequency in people with schizophrenia, and one of which is a shrunken cortex, confirming the brain damage."
Psychiatrist Richard Dudley reviewed all the mental health information and concluded that John Muhammad certainly has a "severe mental illness" of the type that the National Alliance on Mental Illness and Murder Victims` Families for Human Rights have described when they advocate against the execution of the severely mentally ill. Dr. Dudley noted that John Muhammad`s mental illness certainly played a role both in his crimes, and his behavior at trial.
"Elizabeth Young, a juror in the Muhammad case, has described how the evidence of John Muhammad's severe mental illness was never heard by her jury, and that this evidence with clear jury instructions would have led her to vote for a verdict of life in prison without the possibility of parole," Sheldon said.
For more information about the certiorari petition and the clemency request, please visit http://devineconnell.com/ and click on "Announcements."
John Muhammad Files for Stay of Execution with U.S. Supreme Court
Evidence of "Severe Mental Illness" Not Heard by Jury
In a two-track effort to stop the November 10 execution of John Allen Muhammad, sentenced to death after his conviction for 10 killings 7 years ago, Attorney Jon Sheldon has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court and a motion for a stay of execution so that the court can review compelling evidence of Muhammad`s "severe mental illness"
Sheldon also requested that Governor Tim Kaine use his powers of clemency to commute Muhammad`s sentence to life without parole because of the severe mental illness. "The public has been protected from John Muhammad for the past 7 years," said Sheldon, "and a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole would insure that the public would continue to be protected."
"Execution is simply not justified in this case," Sheldon said, "and it is because of John Muhammad`s severe mental illness." Sheldon also stated that "the jurors would not have sentenced him to death if they had received clear instructions and known of his severe mental illness." Life in prison without the possibility of parole has and will keep the people of Virginia safe.
Sheldon said that a psychiatrist has diagnosed Muhammad as "psychotic, delusional and paranoid and that he suffers from schizophrenia."
"This diagnosis" said Sheldon, "is confirmed by objective evidence." Sheldon said that neuropsychological brain imaging applications have demonstrated that John Muhammad has neuropsychological deficits that are consistent with schizophrenia, and point to "brain dysfunction."
Sheldon also said that MRI brain scans of John Muhammad show that "he has three congenital malformations in his brain, two of which are found with greater frequency in people with schizophrenia, and one of which is a shrunken cortex, confirming the brain damage."
Psychiatrist Richard Dudley reviewed all the mental health information and concluded that John Muhammad certainly has a "severe mental illness" of the type that the National Alliance on Mental Illness and Murder Victims` Families for Human Rights have described when they advocate against the execution of the severely mentally ill. Dr. Dudley noted that John Muhammad`s mental illness certainly played a role both in his crimes, and his behavior at trial.
"Elizabeth Young, a juror in the Muhammad case, has described how the evidence of John Muhammad's severe mental illness was never heard by her jury, and that this evidence with clear jury instructions would have led her to vote for a verdict of life in prison without the possibility of parole," Sheldon said.
For more information about the certiorari petition and the clemency request, please visit http://devineconnell.com/ and click on "Announcements."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Nothing to do with the healing
Today's Kentucky State Journal has this article about a Journey of Hope event at Kentucky State University with Terri Steinberg, whose son is on death row in Virginia, Shujaa Graham, whose death sentence was overturned in 1979, and MVFHR board member Bill Pelke. Here's an excerpt:
Pelke, the founder of Journey of Hope, arrived at his argument from the other side. He is a murder victim family member who is morally opposed to the death penalty and has dedicated his life to abolishing the practice.
“The death penalty has nothing to do with the healing,” he says. “It just continues the cycle of violence.”
He’s told his story more 5,000 times, but he still choked up Tuesday during the telling.
Four teenage girls skipped out early from their Indiana high school in 1985. After drinking wine and beer and smoking pot, they decided they needed money to go to a local arcade. One girl knew her neighbor, 78-year-old Ruth Pelke, would invite the other three girls in if they asked for a Bible lesson.
“She was a very religious woman, and her passion was telling Bible stories to young people,” her grandson said.
She invited them in.
One girl hit her over the head with a vase; another pulled a knife and stabbed her. Then another took a turn with the knife. The girls ransacked the house and came up with $10 and an old car.
Paula Cooper, 15 at the time, was the one who first pulled out the knife and was deemed the ringleader. When she was sentenced to the electric chair by the state of Indiana, Pelke supported the judge’s decision.
A year later, however, he asked God for compassion for Cooper and her family.
When he imagined his grandparents’ home, he saw his grandmother butchered to death on the dining room floor where they had celebrated Easter and Christmas and birthdays.
Forgiving Cooper changed that.
He became involved in an international crusade on Cooper’s behalf in 1989, and through those efforts, she was removed from death row and her sentence commuted to 60 years.
When she’s paroled, Pelke hopes she’ll spread her story through Journey of Hope.
“People think, ‘If I get revenge, I’ll feel better,’” he said. “The answer is love and compassion. You’re never going to want to see anyone put in the death chamber.”
Pelke, the founder of Journey of Hope, arrived at his argument from the other side. He is a murder victim family member who is morally opposed to the death penalty and has dedicated his life to abolishing the practice.
“The death penalty has nothing to do with the healing,” he says. “It just continues the cycle of violence.”
He’s told his story more 5,000 times, but he still choked up Tuesday during the telling.
Four teenage girls skipped out early from their Indiana high school in 1985. After drinking wine and beer and smoking pot, they decided they needed money to go to a local arcade. One girl knew her neighbor, 78-year-old Ruth Pelke, would invite the other three girls in if they asked for a Bible lesson.
“She was a very religious woman, and her passion was telling Bible stories to young people,” her grandson said.
She invited them in.
One girl hit her over the head with a vase; another pulled a knife and stabbed her. Then another took a turn with the knife. The girls ransacked the house and came up with $10 and an old car.
Paula Cooper, 15 at the time, was the one who first pulled out the knife and was deemed the ringleader. When she was sentenced to the electric chair by the state of Indiana, Pelke supported the judge’s decision.
A year later, however, he asked God for compassion for Cooper and her family.
When he imagined his grandparents’ home, he saw his grandmother butchered to death on the dining room floor where they had celebrated Easter and Christmas and birthdays.
Forgiving Cooper changed that.
He became involved in an international crusade on Cooper’s behalf in 1989, and through those efforts, she was removed from death row and her sentence commuted to 60 years.
When she’s paroled, Pelke hopes she’ll spread her story through Journey of Hope.
“People think, ‘If I get revenge, I’ll feel better,’” he said. “The answer is love and compassion. You’re never going to want to see anyone put in the death chamber.”
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
"I think you should get life"
Another article about victim opposition to the death penalty from Eric Rogers, whose parents were murdered in 2006. This is from California's CBS, posted yesterday:
A man who witnessed his uncle murder his parents in their El Cerrito home in 2006 told his parents' killer in court in Martinez Monday that he does not think he should be executed for his crimes.
Eric Rogers was 17 years old when Edward Wycoff, now 40, broke into his family's home 1467 Rifle Range Road in the El Cerrito hills shortly before 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 31, 2006, and stabbed and bludgeoned his parents, Julie Rogers, 47, and Paul Rogers, 48.
During the attack, Eric Rogers and his 12-year-old sister hid in a bedroom while Eric Rogers called 911.
In court Monday, Eric Rogers, now 21, told Wycoff, "I think you should get life without the possibility of parole."
"I think the death penalty would be wrong. I think you are mentally childish. I think you are very immature," Rogers said. "I've talked to people who have known you for a long time and they say you haven't changed much since you were about 9 years old."
Wycoff was convicted Oct. 27 of two counts of first-degree murder with enhancements for the use of a knife and a wheelbarrow handle in the killings.
Jurors, who deliberated for about 45 minutes before returning their guilty verdicts, also found true the special-circumstance allegation that Wycoff committed multiple murders, which makes him eligible for the death penalty.
The same jury is now listening to testimony in the penalty phase of the trial and will be asked to decide whether Wycoff should be executed for his crimes.
Wycoff, who is acting as his own attorney, claimed during the first phase of the trial that he had the right to kill Julie and Paul Rogers because they were "bad people" and were out to get him. He claimed that he deserved to be rewarded for killing them because he had made "the world a better place" by "eliminating" them.
Eric Rogers said outside the courtroom that his parents, who were both attorneys, had been opposed to the death penalty and that he and most of his family were opposed to the death penalty.
"I think that killing in hatred is something that is associated with my uncle and not my parents," Eric Rogers said. "I don't think we can teach people that killing is wrong by killing people."
Despite a ballot measure passed in 2008 known as The Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, which says victims have the right to be heard during criminal proceedings, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John Kennedy ruled Monday that Eric Rogers could not testify about his or his parents' feelings about the death penalty.
"In any event, the right to be heard certainly does not confer a right to testify to matters the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have deemed inadmissible in a capital trial," Kennedy said in a written ruling issued Monday.
Both sides are prohibited from asking about Julie and Paul Rogers' feelings about the death penalty, witnesses' feelings about the death penalty and the impact the death penalty would have on the victims if Wycoff is sentenced to death, including a lengthy appeals process, Eric Rogers' attorney Ted Cassman said.
The judge said that once the penalty phase of the trial is over, he will reconsider Eric Rogers' request to testify about his feelings about the death penalty. In the meantime, telling Wycoff he doesn't believe he should be executed for his crimes was as much as Eric Rogers was permitted to say about the potential sentence.
Among his many reasons for killing Julie and Paul Rogers, Wycoff said he didn't approve of the Rogers' liberal political beliefs and didn't like the way they were raising their three children. He said he had planned to kill the parents and then adopt the children and raise them himself.
"My dad was one of the most intelligent and compassionate people I've ever known," the couple's daughter, now 16, testified Monday.
She said he was generous, calm, sincere, caring and open-minded.
She said her mother was "also very compassionate and intelligent."
"She thought a lot. She was very creative, really kind and thoughtful," the daughter said.
The night of the murders, Paul Rogers came into his daughter's bedroom and kissed her on the cheek while she was talking on the phone. After she went to bed, her father knocked on her bedroom door and told her goodnight, but she said she pretended she was asleep.
Her mother had been sitting on the couch that night reading and drinking tea. She tucked her daughter into bed and kissed her goodnight.
The next time the girl saw her father, he was lying on the floor in a pool of his own blood with a large knife stuck in his back. The daughter ran and got a towel and held it around the wound to try to stop the bleeding.
But, she said, she doesn't remember her father that way. She thinks about him eating chips and guacamole and leaning over his computer and she remembers the way his mustache moved when he smiled.
She never saw her mother again. Police found Julie Rogers in the backyard. She had been stabbed multiple times and severely beaten. She was taken to the hospital, where she died later that day.
The daughter said she still imagines her mother picking her up from school and calling her funny names. She said she misses everything about her parents, even the things that used to annoy her.
After her parents' were murdered, their daughter moved away from her friends and everyone she had ever known and went to live with her aunt and uncle in Lafayette.
She said she felt like a burden to them and developed anxiety, depression and drug and alcohol addiction.
"I developed a cynical view of the world. It's hard for me to trust people," she said.
She said she doesn't play harp anymore and she doesn't wear colors.
"I'm not happy. I don't want to wear happy colors," she explained.
When asked what she missed most about her parents, she said she
missed their openness and accepting natures.
A man who witnessed his uncle murder his parents in their El Cerrito home in 2006 told his parents' killer in court in Martinez Monday that he does not think he should be executed for his crimes.
Eric Rogers was 17 years old when Edward Wycoff, now 40, broke into his family's home 1467 Rifle Range Road in the El Cerrito hills shortly before 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 31, 2006, and stabbed and bludgeoned his parents, Julie Rogers, 47, and Paul Rogers, 48.
During the attack, Eric Rogers and his 12-year-old sister hid in a bedroom while Eric Rogers called 911.
In court Monday, Eric Rogers, now 21, told Wycoff, "I think you should get life without the possibility of parole."
"I think the death penalty would be wrong. I think you are mentally childish. I think you are very immature," Rogers said. "I've talked to people who have known you for a long time and they say you haven't changed much since you were about 9 years old."
Wycoff was convicted Oct. 27 of two counts of first-degree murder with enhancements for the use of a knife and a wheelbarrow handle in the killings.
Jurors, who deliberated for about 45 minutes before returning their guilty verdicts, also found true the special-circumstance allegation that Wycoff committed multiple murders, which makes him eligible for the death penalty.
The same jury is now listening to testimony in the penalty phase of the trial and will be asked to decide whether Wycoff should be executed for his crimes.
Wycoff, who is acting as his own attorney, claimed during the first phase of the trial that he had the right to kill Julie and Paul Rogers because they were "bad people" and were out to get him. He claimed that he deserved to be rewarded for killing them because he had made "the world a better place" by "eliminating" them.
Eric Rogers said outside the courtroom that his parents, who were both attorneys, had been opposed to the death penalty and that he and most of his family were opposed to the death penalty.
"I think that killing in hatred is something that is associated with my uncle and not my parents," Eric Rogers said. "I don't think we can teach people that killing is wrong by killing people."
Despite a ballot measure passed in 2008 known as The Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, which says victims have the right to be heard during criminal proceedings, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John Kennedy ruled Monday that Eric Rogers could not testify about his or his parents' feelings about the death penalty.
"In any event, the right to be heard certainly does not confer a right to testify to matters the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have deemed inadmissible in a capital trial," Kennedy said in a written ruling issued Monday.
Both sides are prohibited from asking about Julie and Paul Rogers' feelings about the death penalty, witnesses' feelings about the death penalty and the impact the death penalty would have on the victims if Wycoff is sentenced to death, including a lengthy appeals process, Eric Rogers' attorney Ted Cassman said.
The judge said that once the penalty phase of the trial is over, he will reconsider Eric Rogers' request to testify about his feelings about the death penalty. In the meantime, telling Wycoff he doesn't believe he should be executed for his crimes was as much as Eric Rogers was permitted to say about the potential sentence.
Among his many reasons for killing Julie and Paul Rogers, Wycoff said he didn't approve of the Rogers' liberal political beliefs and didn't like the way they were raising their three children. He said he had planned to kill the parents and then adopt the children and raise them himself.
"My dad was one of the most intelligent and compassionate people I've ever known," the couple's daughter, now 16, testified Monday.
She said he was generous, calm, sincere, caring and open-minded.
She said her mother was "also very compassionate and intelligent."
"She thought a lot. She was very creative, really kind and thoughtful," the daughter said.
The night of the murders, Paul Rogers came into his daughter's bedroom and kissed her on the cheek while she was talking on the phone. After she went to bed, her father knocked on her bedroom door and told her goodnight, but she said she pretended she was asleep.
Her mother had been sitting on the couch that night reading and drinking tea. She tucked her daughter into bed and kissed her goodnight.
The next time the girl saw her father, he was lying on the floor in a pool of his own blood with a large knife stuck in his back. The daughter ran and got a towel and held it around the wound to try to stop the bleeding.
But, she said, she doesn't remember her father that way. She thinks about him eating chips and guacamole and leaning over his computer and she remembers the way his mustache moved when he smiled.
She never saw her mother again. Police found Julie Rogers in the backyard. She had been stabbed multiple times and severely beaten. She was taken to the hospital, where she died later that day.
The daughter said she still imagines her mother picking her up from school and calling her funny names. She said she misses everything about her parents, even the things that used to annoy her.
After her parents' were murdered, their daughter moved away from her friends and everyone she had ever known and went to live with her aunt and uncle in Lafayette.
She said she felt like a burden to them and developed anxiety, depression and drug and alcohol addiction.
"I developed a cynical view of the world. It's hard for me to trust people," she said.
She said she doesn't play harp anymore and she doesn't wear colors.
"I'm not happy. I don't want to wear happy colors," she explained.
When asked what she missed most about her parents, she said she
missed their openness and accepting natures.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Don't Execute, Son Says
From yesterday's Contra Costa (CA) Times, "Don't Execute Killer, Slain El Cerrito couple's son says":
The 20-year-old son of a slain El Cerrito couple is fighting to speak against imposing the death penalty on the uncle who killed his parents, testing for the first time a state law that gave crime victims a greater voice in legal proceedings.
Eric Rogers is scheduled to testify for the prosecution next week during the penalty phase of the murder trial of Edward Wycoff, a 40-year-old Sacramento County truck driver convicted Monday of two counts of first-degree murder for killing his sister and brother-in-law, Paul and Julie Rogers, on Jan. 31, 2006.
While legal precedent limits Eric Rogers to testifying only to the impact the murders have had on his life, Rogers said he wants to tell jurors that he doesn't want Wycoff executed. His parents were strongly opposed to the death penalty, as is he, he said.
"I think revenge would bring me closer to the status of my uncle and further from the status of my parents," Eric Rogers told the Times. "To be vengeful in their name would be disrespectful."
Rogers hired Berkeley attorney Ted Cassman to argue that he has a right to voice his opposition to capital punishment under Marsy's Law, also known as Proposition 9 or the Victim's Rights and Protection Act of 2008, which voters approved last November. Marsy's Law gives victims the right to be heard at any legal proceeding.
Beyond Rogers' belief that the death penalty is wrong, such a sentence would cause Rogers more pain by subjecting him to 10 to 20 years of appeals on Wycoff's behalf, Cassman said.
Read the rest.
The 20-year-old son of a slain El Cerrito couple is fighting to speak against imposing the death penalty on the uncle who killed his parents, testing for the first time a state law that gave crime victims a greater voice in legal proceedings.
Eric Rogers is scheduled to testify for the prosecution next week during the penalty phase of the murder trial of Edward Wycoff, a 40-year-old Sacramento County truck driver convicted Monday of two counts of first-degree murder for killing his sister and brother-in-law, Paul and Julie Rogers, on Jan. 31, 2006.
While legal precedent limits Eric Rogers to testifying only to the impact the murders have had on his life, Rogers said he wants to tell jurors that he doesn't want Wycoff executed. His parents were strongly opposed to the death penalty, as is he, he said.
"I think revenge would bring me closer to the status of my uncle and further from the status of my parents," Eric Rogers told the Times. "To be vengeful in their name would be disrespectful."
Rogers hired Berkeley attorney Ted Cassman to argue that he has a right to voice his opposition to capital punishment under Marsy's Law, also known as Proposition 9 or the Victim's Rights and Protection Act of 2008, which voters approved last November. Marsy's Law gives victims the right to be heard at any legal proceeding.
Beyond Rogers' belief that the death penalty is wrong, such a sentence would cause Rogers more pain by subjecting him to 10 to 20 years of appeals on Wycoff's behalf, Cassman said.
Read the rest.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
It Only Brought the Same Pain
The Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing reported earlier this week on their "Voices on the Death Penalty" evening, which included a powerful story from a victim's family member:
Nearly 120 people turned out on a rainy Memphis evening to attend Voices on the Death Penalty: A Dialogue from the Front Lines. For over an hour, attendees heard the powerful stories of those who have been directly affected by the death penalty and why they now are working to end this public policy.
Kathy Kent, a public defender in Memphis, shared her gut-wrenching journey of loss and continued healing since the murder of her brother, Kenny, in the Oklahoma City bombing. She shared her anger and pain but also her conviction that Timothy McVeigh's execution did nothing to bring her peace. In fact, she stated that it only brought the same pain she was experiencing to McVeigh's family--a family who had done nothing wrong.
Read the rest of the post.
Nearly 120 people turned out on a rainy Memphis evening to attend Voices on the Death Penalty: A Dialogue from the Front Lines. For over an hour, attendees heard the powerful stories of those who have been directly affected by the death penalty and why they now are working to end this public policy.
Kathy Kent, a public defender in Memphis, shared her gut-wrenching journey of loss and continued healing since the murder of her brother, Kenny, in the Oklahoma City bombing. She shared her anger and pain but also her conviction that Timothy McVeigh's execution did nothing to bring her peace. In fact, she stated that it only brought the same pain she was experiencing to McVeigh's family--a family who had done nothing wrong.
Read the rest of the post.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
If We Are Serious
This letter to the editor was published in today's Gazette.Net, a Maryland online news site:
Repeal the Death Penalty
What a relief to hear that Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger has settled his most recent death penalty prosecution with a sentence of life without parole, thereby securing a speedy resolution for the victim's family.
The sad reality is that the death penalty handcuffs the surviving families of homicide victims to decades of legal procedures. In the end, the vast majority are resentenced to life without parole, which could have been sought at trial.
The new death penalty law that went into effect recently will likely narrow the risk of our state executing an innocent person. But the General Assembly, in passing the law, ignored another compelling finding of the 2008 Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment: "the effects of capital cases are more detrimental to (murder victims') families than are life without the possibility of parole cases." As a member of the commission, Shellenberger agreed with this finding, although he voted to maintain the death penalty.
The new law makes Maryland's death penalty ever more complex, which means a longer process.
As a mother who lost a son to murder, my heart goes out the family of [Correctional] Officer [David] McGuinn, whose alleged killers [are] still facing death for killing this correctional officer in 2006. It has been over three years and this case has yet to go to trial — precisely because it is a death penalty case.
If we are serious about helping victims' families, we should go ahead and repeal the death penalty, sparing them the agonizing wait for cases to come to an end. Eliminating the death penalty will also save the state money that could be reinvested to provide more meaningful care for the families of murder victims, something I know from personal experience is lacking now.
Vivian Penda, Silver Spring
Repeal the Death Penalty
What a relief to hear that Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger has settled his most recent death penalty prosecution with a sentence of life without parole, thereby securing a speedy resolution for the victim's family.
The sad reality is that the death penalty handcuffs the surviving families of homicide victims to decades of legal procedures. In the end, the vast majority are resentenced to life without parole, which could have been sought at trial.
The new death penalty law that went into effect recently will likely narrow the risk of our state executing an innocent person. But the General Assembly, in passing the law, ignored another compelling finding of the 2008 Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment: "the effects of capital cases are more detrimental to (murder victims') families than are life without the possibility of parole cases." As a member of the commission, Shellenberger agreed with this finding, although he voted to maintain the death penalty.
The new law makes Maryland's death penalty ever more complex, which means a longer process.
As a mother who lost a son to murder, my heart goes out the family of [Correctional] Officer [David] McGuinn, whose alleged killers [are] still facing death for killing this correctional officer in 2006. It has been over three years and this case has yet to go to trial — precisely because it is a death penalty case.
If we are serious about helping victims' families, we should go ahead and repeal the death penalty, sparing them the agonizing wait for cases to come to an end. Eliminating the death penalty will also save the state money that could be reinvested to provide more meaningful care for the families of murder victims, something I know from personal experience is lacking now.
Vivian Penda, Silver Spring
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Study Commission in New Hampshire
Yesterday New Hampshire's new Death Penalty Study Commission met for the first time. Like similar commissions in Tennessee and Maryland, this one has an MVFHR member serving on it; New Hampshire's has MVFHR Executive Director Renny Cushing, who is also a State Representative.
Today's article in the Nashua Telegraph notes that the Commission will consider the following questions about the death penalty:
• Does it serve a legitimate public interest such as general deterrence, specific deterrence, punishment or instilling confidence in the criminal justice system?
• Is it consistent with evolving societal standards of decency?
• Is the use of a penalty phase to determine the death penalty’s use after conviction at trial arbitrary, unfair or discriminatory?
• Should the narrow application of the death penalty in this state be expanded, narrowed, or otherwise altered?
• Are there alternatives to capital punishment that ensure public safety and address the interests of society, the penal system and the families of victims of crime?
• Is there a significant difference in the cost of prosecution and incarceration between capital punishment and life without parole for the convicted capital murderer?
And from another article published in the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago:
The murder of 42-year-old Kimberly Cates in Mont Vernon over the weekend comes two weeks before state and local officials are scheduled to meet in Concord to begin work examining New Hampshire’s death penalty law, whether it should be abolished, expanded or left as it is.
Cates was killed in her home early Sunday morning while her husband was away on a business trip. Their 11-year-old daughter was also attacked, but is in a Boston hospital and expected to live.
Four teenagers appeared Tuesday in Milford District Court in connection with the slaying. Steven Spader, 17, and Christopher Gribble, 19, both of Brookline, were charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. William Marks, 18, and Quinn Glover, 17, both of Amherst, were charged with burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary and robbery.
According to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, the crime does not fit within the state’s definition of a capital murder. The current statute restricts issuing the death penalty to cases when a law enforcement or judicial officer is killed in the line of duty, in the case of murder-for-hire, if the accused is currently serving a life sentence or when the murder occurs in connection with a kidnapping, drug crime or sexual assault.
With the state’s Death Penalty Task Force Study Commission set to meet Oct. 21, so soon after this brutal and shocking murder, public outcry over the crime could push some commission members into taking a more serious look at expanding the capital murder law.
Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, an outspoken death penalty opponent who sponsored the bill that created the death penalty study commission, said it is a natural emotional reaction after a horrible murder for people to want to put the accused to death.
“I can understand that. I have a similar reaction when I see these things” despite being opposed to the death penalty, he said. “I think you always have to look at the big picture and the death penalty, what it symbolizes, has created an atmosphere of killing. Most industrialized nations of the world say we should not allow the death penalty for that reason.”
State Rep. Robert “Renny” Cushing, D-Hampton, is a well-known death penalty opponent who was appointed to the study commission. He said he doesn’t think Cates’ murder will influence commission members and expects they will come to the table with an open mind.
“I don’t know if any one particular murder will have an influence,” Cushing said. “I think there are still people who support the death penalty but who have concerns [about] how it’s administered and who selects it.”
Today's article in the Nashua Telegraph notes that the Commission will consider the following questions about the death penalty:
• Does it serve a legitimate public interest such as general deterrence, specific deterrence, punishment or instilling confidence in the criminal justice system?
• Is it consistent with evolving societal standards of decency?
• Is the use of a penalty phase to determine the death penalty’s use after conviction at trial arbitrary, unfair or discriminatory?
• Should the narrow application of the death penalty in this state be expanded, narrowed, or otherwise altered?
• Are there alternatives to capital punishment that ensure public safety and address the interests of society, the penal system and the families of victims of crime?
• Is there a significant difference in the cost of prosecution and incarceration between capital punishment and life without parole for the convicted capital murderer?
And from another article published in the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago:
The murder of 42-year-old Kimberly Cates in Mont Vernon over the weekend comes two weeks before state and local officials are scheduled to meet in Concord to begin work examining New Hampshire’s death penalty law, whether it should be abolished, expanded or left as it is.
Cates was killed in her home early Sunday morning while her husband was away on a business trip. Their 11-year-old daughter was also attacked, but is in a Boston hospital and expected to live.
Four teenagers appeared Tuesday in Milford District Court in connection with the slaying. Steven Spader, 17, and Christopher Gribble, 19, both of Brookline, were charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. William Marks, 18, and Quinn Glover, 17, both of Amherst, were charged with burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary and robbery.
According to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, the crime does not fit within the state’s definition of a capital murder. The current statute restricts issuing the death penalty to cases when a law enforcement or judicial officer is killed in the line of duty, in the case of murder-for-hire, if the accused is currently serving a life sentence or when the murder occurs in connection with a kidnapping, drug crime or sexual assault.
With the state’s Death Penalty Task Force Study Commission set to meet Oct. 21, so soon after this brutal and shocking murder, public outcry over the crime could push some commission members into taking a more serious look at expanding the capital murder law.
Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, an outspoken death penalty opponent who sponsored the bill that created the death penalty study commission, said it is a natural emotional reaction after a horrible murder for people to want to put the accused to death.
“I can understand that. I have a similar reaction when I see these things” despite being opposed to the death penalty, he said. “I think you always have to look at the big picture and the death penalty, what it symbolizes, has created an atmosphere of killing. Most industrialized nations of the world say we should not allow the death penalty for that reason.”
State Rep. Robert “Renny” Cushing, D-Hampton, is a well-known death penalty opponent who was appointed to the study commission. He said he doesn’t think Cates’ murder will influence commission members and expects they will come to the table with an open mind.
“I don’t know if any one particular murder will have an influence,” Cushing said. “I think there are still people who support the death penalty but who have concerns [about] how it’s administered and who selects it.”
Monday, October 19, 2009
Its Unlikeliest Legacy
This story from the British Telegraph features MVFHR member Jo Berry, whose father, a member of Parliament, was killed in 1984 by a bomb planted by the IRA. In 2000, Jo met with Pat Magee, the man responsible for the bombing.
Here's an excerpt from the article:
'My first impression of him was that he was very polite, very quietly spoken, small, with a beard and glasses. He didn't conform to my idea of what a terrorist should look like at all. He seemed almost academic."
Jo Berry's memory of coming face to face with Patrick Magee, the Provisional IRA bomber who killed her father, Sir Anthony Berry, is delivered in a low, trance-like voice as though she is back, apprehensive and amazed, in the secret location near Dublin where they met nine years ago. She'd repeatedly been told that Magee didn't want to meet her: he wasn't interested in being understood by the middle-class daughter of a Tory toff. Then, one day when she was in the middle of making vegetable soup, there was a call from a go-between with instructions for a rendezvous. She took the ferry to Ireland and launched into a strange, unorthodox friendship.
Sir Anthony, MP for Southgate, was one of the five people who died when the Grand Hotel, Brighton, was ripped apart on October 12, 1984, the last day of the Conservative Party conference. He was 59 and had six children. Magee, who had planted the bomb behind the bath panel in Room 629 three weeks earlier, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment. But his co-criminals in the plot to wipe out Margaret Thatcher and most of her Cabinet were never traced. With no warning to the victims' relatives, Magee was released under the Good Friday Agreement in 1999, after 14 years.
Jo, 52, a first cousin of Diana, Princess of Wales, says she knew early on that if she was going to overcome bitterness it might mean confronting the bomber. She started to make regular trips to Ireland to try to understand the conflict from both sides – without telling family or friends. Meeting Magee seemed the logical, if extreme, extension of her need to make sense of it. "It was much more than me and my father. I felt I was part of a war." As the 25th anniversary of the bomb approaches, the permanency of the bond forged between victim and bomber is its unlikeliest legacy.
"My expectation on that day," she says, "was that he would explain his political position – which I was used to hearing – and I would talk about what it meant to lose my wonderful father. And that would be that. There would be no point in meeting again. It couldn't go anywhere. Once would have been enough."
But it wasn't. They spent three highly-charged hours together. "After an hour and a half, he stopped talking," she recalls. "There was a moment of silence. He took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes. 'I don't know who I am any more', he said. 'I don't know what to say. I've never met anyone like you, with so much dignity. What can I do to help? I want to hear your anger. I want to hear your pain.'
"His face got softer. At that point, I wanted to run. It was so much more than I'd bargained for. I didn't know where it would take me. A voice inside me was saying: you should not be talking to the man who killed your father. It's wrong. wrong, wrong. There was a feeling of betrayal. But part of me wanted this to make a difference. It seemed to be positive. I stayed. As soon as I got home, I wanted to go back for more. It was part of my healing to hear his story and reach an understanding of why he chose violence."
Here's an excerpt from the article:
'My first impression of him was that he was very polite, very quietly spoken, small, with a beard and glasses. He didn't conform to my idea of what a terrorist should look like at all. He seemed almost academic."
Jo Berry's memory of coming face to face with Patrick Magee, the Provisional IRA bomber who killed her father, Sir Anthony Berry, is delivered in a low, trance-like voice as though she is back, apprehensive and amazed, in the secret location near Dublin where they met nine years ago. She'd repeatedly been told that Magee didn't want to meet her: he wasn't interested in being understood by the middle-class daughter of a Tory toff. Then, one day when she was in the middle of making vegetable soup, there was a call from a go-between with instructions for a rendezvous. She took the ferry to Ireland and launched into a strange, unorthodox friendship.
Sir Anthony, MP for Southgate, was one of the five people who died when the Grand Hotel, Brighton, was ripped apart on October 12, 1984, the last day of the Conservative Party conference. He was 59 and had six children. Magee, who had planted the bomb behind the bath panel in Room 629 three weeks earlier, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment. But his co-criminals in the plot to wipe out Margaret Thatcher and most of her Cabinet were never traced. With no warning to the victims' relatives, Magee was released under the Good Friday Agreement in 1999, after 14 years.
Jo, 52, a first cousin of Diana, Princess of Wales, says she knew early on that if she was going to overcome bitterness it might mean confronting the bomber. She started to make regular trips to Ireland to try to understand the conflict from both sides – without telling family or friends. Meeting Magee seemed the logical, if extreme, extension of her need to make sense of it. "It was much more than me and my father. I felt I was part of a war." As the 25th anniversary of the bomb approaches, the permanency of the bond forged between victim and bomber is its unlikeliest legacy.
"My expectation on that day," she says, "was that he would explain his political position – which I was used to hearing – and I would talk about what it meant to lose my wonderful father. And that would be that. There would be no point in meeting again. It couldn't go anywhere. Once would have been enough."
But it wasn't. They spent three highly-charged hours together. "After an hour and a half, he stopped talking," she recalls. "There was a moment of silence. He took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes. 'I don't know who I am any more', he said. 'I don't know what to say. I've never met anyone like you, with so much dignity. What can I do to help? I want to hear your anger. I want to hear your pain.'
"His face got softer. At that point, I wanted to run. It was so much more than I'd bargained for. I didn't know where it would take me. A voice inside me was saying: you should not be talking to the man who killed your father. It's wrong. wrong, wrong. There was a feeling of betrayal. But part of me wanted this to make a difference. It seemed to be positive. I stayed. As soon as I got home, I wanted to go back for more. It was part of my healing to hear his story and reach an understanding of why he chose violence."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)