From today's Denver Daily News article headlined "Death penalty foes rally, Back bill that would abolish death penalty in Colorado":
A coalition of organizations gathered at the Capitol yesterday to support legislation that would abolish the death penalty and reallocate those funds to focus on solving cold cases.
Yesterday’s gathering included a number of organizations representing family members of unsolved murder victims, civil rights, criminal justice and religious groups.
House Bill 1274, sponsored by House Majority Leader Paul Weissmann, D-Louisville, passed out of the House Appropriations Committee last Friday by a vote of 8-4 and is scheduled to be debated in the full House on April 15.
The money saved by the repeal of the death penalty, which proponents of the bill estimate at $4 million per year, would be spent on Colorado’s approximately 1,400 unsolved cold cases, some of which date back to 1970. Those funds would go towards the creation of a “Cold Case Team” at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
“We are in this to trade vengeance for justice,” said Howard Morton, executive director of the non-profit Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons. “We are willing to give up the death penalty to get more specialized investigation of our loved ones. When a murder is not solved in a reasonable amount of time at the local level, then the state must step in. Murder is a crime against the state.”
An earlier post about an MVFHR member testifying at the Colorado hearings is here.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Each and every one of us
The New York bureau of The Mainichi Newspapers, Japan's oldest news organization, has been running a series on the death penalty; we posted an article featuring MVFHR member Aba Gayle a few weeks ago. Here's another story in the series, this time an opinion piece in the March 22 Mainichi Daily News:
Since I arrived in New York two years ago and began reporting continuously on the issue of the death penalty, I have asked myself every day what I ought to think about the state taking human lives.
With the start of the lay judge system in Japan this May, regular citizens will have to confront the death penalty directly, which I think is a chance for us to begin thinking about the death penalty as our problem. In Japan, however, there is a dearth of information citizens need to engage in such discussions. Is not the death penalty an issue concerning the public, and not solely the Ministry of Justice?
I recently went to Dallas, Texas, to visit Kerry Cook, a former death row inmate with a broad, easy smile that showed his gentle nature.
In 1977, Cook was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a 21-year-old woman he did not commit. It wasn't until 1997 that the dubious nature of the investigation was recognized and Cook's innocence proven beyond a doubt by DNA evidence, by which time Cook had already spent 20 years on death row. In those 20 years, Cook saw 141 of his fellow inmates head to the execution chamber. It was a trip that Cook, too, faced, as his execution date was set in May 1988. Cook was only spared, and given time for his innocence to emerge, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a deferment just 11 days before he was to be executed.
Cook's own impending death was not the only one on his mind in those days before his scheduled execution, for his elder brother had been murdered in 1987. The shock of losing his brother was so great that Cook tried to commit suicide in prison twice.
Although Cook well knows the pain of a victim's family, he is firmly against the death penalty, "because there remains a possibility of killing innocent people like me, even if a trial proceeds cautiously. My brother was shot to death, but I am still opposed to the murderer being killed in prison," he says.
A 12-member jury handed down Cook's death sentence by a unanimous vote. During a retrial in 1994, the jury affirmed that he deserved to die. Why did two juries, which should have felt the common bonds of citizenship with Cook, make such a mistake?
"In an American courtroom the prosecutor and the judge control the trial," explains Cook. "The jury is not left with any doubt about the accusation as it comes from the prosecutor. And the jury may not have enough information to form their own questions."
Cook believes the essential problem with the death penalty is that regular citizens are out of touch with the issue. People just don't know about the lives of death row inmates, what they think about as they count out their final days, or how a person can be "murdered by the state."
"I didn't understand anything about the death penalty before being arrested," says Cook. "If someone had asked me then, I would have said, yes, the suspect committed a murder, so they deserve the death penalty."
A trend of increasingly harsh penalties based simply on the rationale that "the person did something bad," couldn't have been the original goal of citizen participation in criminal trials.
Regarding the disclosure of information about executions, the United States is far ahead of Japan. At present, 36 of the 50 American states have death penalty statutes on the books. By law, the execution date must be set 30 days or more before the actual deed, and that date is released to the public. It's possible to find execution dates on the Internet, and even meet the condemned prisoner, should he or she approve. In Missouri, such meetings are kept private, with no prison guards or officials present.
As a basic rule, both the families of the prisoners and their victims are allowed to attend executions, and the admission of journalists is also common. The state of Oklahoma even encourages journalists to come to executions. Coverage is so thorough as to include a detailed menu of the condemned's last meal, while just before the execution is carried out the prisoner is always asked for his or her final words. So as to make sure these are heard, a microphone is directed at the prisoner.
It appears that in the United States, no effort is spared in ensuring transparency and the absolute elimination of doubt, so as to enforce the death sentence "properly."
The situation in Japan is very different indeed. Meetings with death row inmates are severely restricted, the families of both the victims and the condemned are not informed of the execution date, and of course cannot attend. What death row inmates think, how they live and how they die we do not know. In the end, is it right for citizens with no real knowledge of the death penalty to hand down such sentences?
While doing research for the Mainichi's February series on the death penalty in Japan and the United States, the words of one woman I met in Oregon stuck in my mind. Aba Gayle, 72, who has forgiven and even now lends moral support to her daughter's murderer, said she believes the Japanese are committing murder by continuing the death penalty. Neither the government nor the minister of justice, nor even the executioner is taking the lives of Japan's condemned. Each and every one of us is doing the killing.
After Kerry Cook was released he got married and had a son, naming him Kerry Justice Cook, as he wanted to believe in justice again. However, his anguish continues. Cook was recently forced to transfer his son to a new school, as Justice was being bullied by his classmates for being the son of a death row prisoner.
"Once someone is sentenced to death, the family of the criminal is also sentenced to death," says Cook.
The decision to take someone's life is a heavy one. If the public is not sufficiently informed about the death penalty, then there is the danger we will make mistakes that cannot be taken back. There is a dire need for information about the death penalty to be disclosed to the public before our citizens take such a heavy responsibility on their shoulders. (By Takayasu Ogura, New York Bureau)
Since I arrived in New York two years ago and began reporting continuously on the issue of the death penalty, I have asked myself every day what I ought to think about the state taking human lives.
With the start of the lay judge system in Japan this May, regular citizens will have to confront the death penalty directly, which I think is a chance for us to begin thinking about the death penalty as our problem. In Japan, however, there is a dearth of information citizens need to engage in such discussions. Is not the death penalty an issue concerning the public, and not solely the Ministry of Justice?
I recently went to Dallas, Texas, to visit Kerry Cook, a former death row inmate with a broad, easy smile that showed his gentle nature.
In 1977, Cook was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a 21-year-old woman he did not commit. It wasn't until 1997 that the dubious nature of the investigation was recognized and Cook's innocence proven beyond a doubt by DNA evidence, by which time Cook had already spent 20 years on death row. In those 20 years, Cook saw 141 of his fellow inmates head to the execution chamber. It was a trip that Cook, too, faced, as his execution date was set in May 1988. Cook was only spared, and given time for his innocence to emerge, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a deferment just 11 days before he was to be executed.
Cook's own impending death was not the only one on his mind in those days before his scheduled execution, for his elder brother had been murdered in 1987. The shock of losing his brother was so great that Cook tried to commit suicide in prison twice.
Although Cook well knows the pain of a victim's family, he is firmly against the death penalty, "because there remains a possibility of killing innocent people like me, even if a trial proceeds cautiously. My brother was shot to death, but I am still opposed to the murderer being killed in prison," he says.
A 12-member jury handed down Cook's death sentence by a unanimous vote. During a retrial in 1994, the jury affirmed that he deserved to die. Why did two juries, which should have felt the common bonds of citizenship with Cook, make such a mistake?
"In an American courtroom the prosecutor and the judge control the trial," explains Cook. "The jury is not left with any doubt about the accusation as it comes from the prosecutor. And the jury may not have enough information to form their own questions."
Cook believes the essential problem with the death penalty is that regular citizens are out of touch with the issue. People just don't know about the lives of death row inmates, what they think about as they count out their final days, or how a person can be "murdered by the state."
"I didn't understand anything about the death penalty before being arrested," says Cook. "If someone had asked me then, I would have said, yes, the suspect committed a murder, so they deserve the death penalty."
A trend of increasingly harsh penalties based simply on the rationale that "the person did something bad," couldn't have been the original goal of citizen participation in criminal trials.
Regarding the disclosure of information about executions, the United States is far ahead of Japan. At present, 36 of the 50 American states have death penalty statutes on the books. By law, the execution date must be set 30 days or more before the actual deed, and that date is released to the public. It's possible to find execution dates on the Internet, and even meet the condemned prisoner, should he or she approve. In Missouri, such meetings are kept private, with no prison guards or officials present.
As a basic rule, both the families of the prisoners and their victims are allowed to attend executions, and the admission of journalists is also common. The state of Oklahoma even encourages journalists to come to executions. Coverage is so thorough as to include a detailed menu of the condemned's last meal, while just before the execution is carried out the prisoner is always asked for his or her final words. So as to make sure these are heard, a microphone is directed at the prisoner.
It appears that in the United States, no effort is spared in ensuring transparency and the absolute elimination of doubt, so as to enforce the death sentence "properly."
The situation in Japan is very different indeed. Meetings with death row inmates are severely restricted, the families of both the victims and the condemned are not informed of the execution date, and of course cannot attend. What death row inmates think, how they live and how they die we do not know. In the end, is it right for citizens with no real knowledge of the death penalty to hand down such sentences?
While doing research for the Mainichi's February series on the death penalty in Japan and the United States, the words of one woman I met in Oregon stuck in my mind. Aba Gayle, 72, who has forgiven and even now lends moral support to her daughter's murderer, said she believes the Japanese are committing murder by continuing the death penalty. Neither the government nor the minister of justice, nor even the executioner is taking the lives of Japan's condemned. Each and every one of us is doing the killing.
After Kerry Cook was released he got married and had a son, naming him Kerry Justice Cook, as he wanted to believe in justice again. However, his anguish continues. Cook was recently forced to transfer his son to a new school, as Justice was being bullied by his classmates for being the son of a death row prisoner.
"Once someone is sentenced to death, the family of the criminal is also sentenced to death," says Cook.
The decision to take someone's life is a heavy one. If the public is not sufficiently informed about the death penalty, then there is the danger we will make mistakes that cannot be taken back. There is a dire need for information about the death penalty to be disclosed to the public before our citizens take such a heavy responsibility on their shoulders. (By Takayasu Ogura, New York Bureau)
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
What do we do for the victims?
Yesterday the Connecticut Judiciary Committee voted 24-13 to endorse a bill that would replace the state's death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole, and it's interesting to see that awareness of victim opposition to the death penalty comes up in the coverage of this vote.
The Hartford Courant has this:
"What results do we get? What are the outcomes? What do we do for the victims? They never get retribution -- the system doesn't work," said state Rep. Joseph Taborsak, D-Danbury, who voted in favor of the bill.
An here's an excerpt from an opinion piece in the News-Times, by Professor of Justice and Law Administration George F. Kain:
Not surprisingly, there is a growing trend away from the death penalty as New Mexico has joined New York and New Jersey as the third state in two years to abolish it.
The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk, which is the main reason given by Governor Richardson for signing the repeal legislation.
Equally as important, repeal of the death penalty is a victory for murder victims' families. Now they can avoid the added pain of going through the seemingly endless legal process associated with the death penalty.
The sponsor of New Mexico's repeal legislation also sponsored legislation to provide restitution to victims' families. Any abolition bill must include this provision for the benefit and healing of surviving family members.
Connecticut continues to spend at least $4 million a year on this wasteful practice, according to an estimate by the General Assembly's Office of Fiscal Analysis. Experts arrived at a similar estimate for the cost of New Mexico's death penalty.
It is time for Connecticut to join those states that have legislatively abolished the death penalty.
Murder victims' family members urge Connecticut lawmakers to follow New Mexico's lead. The Rev. Walter Everett, who lost his son to murder in 1987, recently stated: "The money saved by abolishing the death penalty could be well used for programs to meet the needs of victims' families."
The Hartford Courant has this:
"What results do we get? What are the outcomes? What do we do for the victims? They never get retribution -- the system doesn't work," said state Rep. Joseph Taborsak, D-Danbury, who voted in favor of the bill.
An here's an excerpt from an opinion piece in the News-Times, by Professor of Justice and Law Administration George F. Kain:
Not surprisingly, there is a growing trend away from the death penalty as New Mexico has joined New York and New Jersey as the third state in two years to abolish it.
The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk, which is the main reason given by Governor Richardson for signing the repeal legislation.
Equally as important, repeal of the death penalty is a victory for murder victims' families. Now they can avoid the added pain of going through the seemingly endless legal process associated with the death penalty.
The sponsor of New Mexico's repeal legislation also sponsored legislation to provide restitution to victims' families. Any abolition bill must include this provision for the benefit and healing of surviving family members.
Connecticut continues to spend at least $4 million a year on this wasteful practice, according to an estimate by the General Assembly's Office of Fiscal Analysis. Experts arrived at a similar estimate for the cost of New Mexico's death penalty.
It is time for Connecticut to join those states that have legislatively abolished the death penalty.
Murder victims' family members urge Connecticut lawmakers to follow New Mexico's lead. The Rev. Walter Everett, who lost his son to murder in 1987, recently stated: "The money saved by abolishing the death penalty could be well used for programs to meet the needs of victims' families."
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Dignity Restored
Renny Cushing is in Italy representing MVFHR at a meeting of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty steering committee. Among other business, the group will be beginning to plan the Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty, a gathering that will take place next February.
Last week, in addition to passing the death penalty study commission and repeal bills, the New Hampshire House became the first legislative body in the country to pass legislation that prohibits discrimination against victims who oppose the death penalty. House Bill 370, "An act relative to the treatment of victims of crime," passed 213-114. The bill amends New Hampshire's Crime Victims Bill of Rights by adding this section:
"The right to all federal and state constitutional rights guaranteed to all victims of crime on an equal basis, and notwithstanding the provisions of any laws on capital punishment, the right not to be discriminated against or have their rights as a victim denied, diminished, expanded, or enhanced on the basis of the victim’s support for, opposition to, or neutrality on the death penalty."
For several years, we've been documenting instances of discrimination by prosecutors, judges, and victims' advocates against victims based on their opposition to the death penalty. In the report Dignity Denied: The Experience of Murder Victims' Families Who Oppose the Death Penalty, we proposed model legislation, the Crime Victims' Equality Act, and last week's New Hampshire legislation is based on this model. We hope that other states will now introduce similar legislation.
Last week, in addition to passing the death penalty study commission and repeal bills, the New Hampshire House became the first legislative body in the country to pass legislation that prohibits discrimination against victims who oppose the death penalty. House Bill 370, "An act relative to the treatment of victims of crime," passed 213-114. The bill amends New Hampshire's Crime Victims Bill of Rights by adding this section:
"The right to all federal and state constitutional rights guaranteed to all victims of crime on an equal basis, and notwithstanding the provisions of any laws on capital punishment, the right not to be discriminated against or have their rights as a victim denied, diminished, expanded, or enhanced on the basis of the victim’s support for, opposition to, or neutrality on the death penalty."
For several years, we've been documenting instances of discrimination by prosecutors, judges, and victims' advocates against victims based on their opposition to the death penalty. In the report Dignity Denied: The Experience of Murder Victims' Families Who Oppose the Death Penalty, we proposed model legislation, the Crime Victims' Equality Act, and last week's New Hampshire legislation is based on this model. We hope that other states will now introduce similar legislation.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Conferencing
Amnesty International's annual national conference, held in Boston this year, begins today and continues through the weekend. MVFHR Director Renny Cushing will participate in a panel titled "Stories from the Trenches: personal narratives from the Abolition Movement," along with Florida death row exoneree Juan Melendez and Chad Stokes, lead singer of State Radio, who has been advocating on behalf of death row inmate Troy Davis.
I am in DC attending the annual Psychotherapy Networker Symposium where, among other things, I will be meeting with people involved with issues of mental illness and the family. I hope to connect with some potential allies for our Prevention, Not Execution project.
I am in DC attending the annual Psychotherapy Networker Symposium where, among other things, I will be meeting with people involved with issues of mental illness and the family. I hope to connect with some potential allies for our Prevention, Not Execution project.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Surprise vote in New Hampshire House
Yesterday the New Hampshire House voted to repeal the state's death penalty. Here's New Hampshire Public Radio's news story quoting extensively from Renny Cushing's remarks during the floor debate; the site also has a link to the audio version.
New Hampshire House lawmakers shocked many today when they voted to repeal the state’s death penalty.
The measure passed by 19 votes, one-hundred ninety-three to one-hundred seventy-four.
This comes after a jury sentenced Michael Addison to death last fall for the murder of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs.
New Hampshire Public Radio’s Dan Gorenstein reports.
This year death penalty opponents had their hopes on a bill to study the issue.
That measure sailed through the House.
Nobody, really, thought the bill to repeal the death penalty had a chance.
In fact, many members left their seats, or chatted as the first few Representatives spoke in favor of the legislation.
But then....
TAPE: the chair recognizes the member from Hampton, Representative Cushing....Thank you Madame Speaker, members of the House....
....Democrat Renny Cushing started talking about how his dad was murdered.
TAPE: my father was sitting at the kitchen table reading Foster’s Daily Democrat, and my mother was on the couch watching the Boston Celtics playoff game...There was a knock on the front door....my dad got up to open it...and two shotgun blasts rang out, turned his chest into hamburger and he died in front of my mother in the home they lived in for 35 years and raised their seven children.
On hearing such intimate details, House members grew quiet and leaned forward.
Cushing went on.
TAPE: an old friend came up to me and he said, ‘you know Renny, I hope they fry the bastards. I hope they fry the bastards so your mother, and you and your family can get some peace.”
But he says he didn’t have the “normal” reaction to his father’s murder.
On principle, Cushing had always opposed to the death penalty.
And he said, if he changed his opinion in the wake of the murder, he would only give his father’s murderer more power.
TAPE: because not only would my father be taken from me. But so would my values. And it’s the same for society as it is for individuals. If we let those who kill, make us into killers, than evil triumphs. And we all lose.
SFX: That was amazing, honey. That was amazing.
After the vote, teary eyed lawmakers greeted Cushing, people patted his back, others just gave long knowing looks.
Cushing says he’s not sure why a majority voted to repeal capital punishment.
If Committee hearings are any indication, it’s not unusual for emotional anecdotes like Cushing’s to sway House member’s opinions.
Cushing says maybe hearing a so-called ‘victim’ say he didn’t support retribution flipped some votes.
Or maybe, it’s because people are uncomfortable with the result of the Addison and John Brooks cases.
TAPE: there is this concern about justice in black and white in New Hampshire. And the fact that we had two capital cases; and the white millionaire gets off and the black get from Boston gets death bothers people.
Not everyone believes the death penalty needs to be repealed.
TAPE: sad day for the state of New Hampshire. The saddest I’ve seen in 21 years.
That’s Republican Representative Julie Brown.
She’s in her 11th term.
TAPE: I am appalled. And I am just wondering if Mrs. Briggs and her sons are listening to what the New Hampshire Legislature did. How do you think they feel waking up every morning knowing their loved one is gone? And yet the prisoner sits in jail. With the lap of luxury, medical care, three meals a day. Better than any welfare.
The measure now heads to the Senate.
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte says she will lobby to kill the bill.
She may not have to work too hard.
Already senators from both sides of the aisle say the legislation has no chance.
But somehow, if this bill defies the odds like it just has in the House, Governor Lynch has promised vowed to veto it.
For NHPR News, I’m Dan Gorenstein.
New Hampshire House lawmakers shocked many today when they voted to repeal the state’s death penalty.
The measure passed by 19 votes, one-hundred ninety-three to one-hundred seventy-four.
This comes after a jury sentenced Michael Addison to death last fall for the murder of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs.
New Hampshire Public Radio’s Dan Gorenstein reports.
This year death penalty opponents had their hopes on a bill to study the issue.
That measure sailed through the House.
Nobody, really, thought the bill to repeal the death penalty had a chance.
In fact, many members left their seats, or chatted as the first few Representatives spoke in favor of the legislation.
But then....
TAPE: the chair recognizes the member from Hampton, Representative Cushing....Thank you Madame Speaker, members of the House....
....Democrat Renny Cushing started talking about how his dad was murdered.
TAPE: my father was sitting at the kitchen table reading Foster’s Daily Democrat, and my mother was on the couch watching the Boston Celtics playoff game...There was a knock on the front door....my dad got up to open it...and two shotgun blasts rang out, turned his chest into hamburger and he died in front of my mother in the home they lived in for 35 years and raised their seven children.
On hearing such intimate details, House members grew quiet and leaned forward.
Cushing went on.
TAPE: an old friend came up to me and he said, ‘you know Renny, I hope they fry the bastards. I hope they fry the bastards so your mother, and you and your family can get some peace.”
But he says he didn’t have the “normal” reaction to his father’s murder.
On principle, Cushing had always opposed to the death penalty.
And he said, if he changed his opinion in the wake of the murder, he would only give his father’s murderer more power.
TAPE: because not only would my father be taken from me. But so would my values. And it’s the same for society as it is for individuals. If we let those who kill, make us into killers, than evil triumphs. And we all lose.
SFX: That was amazing, honey. That was amazing.
After the vote, teary eyed lawmakers greeted Cushing, people patted his back, others just gave long knowing looks.
Cushing says he’s not sure why a majority voted to repeal capital punishment.
If Committee hearings are any indication, it’s not unusual for emotional anecdotes like Cushing’s to sway House member’s opinions.
Cushing says maybe hearing a so-called ‘victim’ say he didn’t support retribution flipped some votes.
Or maybe, it’s because people are uncomfortable with the result of the Addison and John Brooks cases.
TAPE: there is this concern about justice in black and white in New Hampshire. And the fact that we had two capital cases; and the white millionaire gets off and the black get from Boston gets death bothers people.
Not everyone believes the death penalty needs to be repealed.
TAPE: sad day for the state of New Hampshire. The saddest I’ve seen in 21 years.
That’s Republican Representative Julie Brown.
She’s in her 11th term.
TAPE: I am appalled. And I am just wondering if Mrs. Briggs and her sons are listening to what the New Hampshire Legislature did. How do you think they feel waking up every morning knowing their loved one is gone? And yet the prisoner sits in jail. With the lap of luxury, medical care, three meals a day. Better than any welfare.
The measure now heads to the Senate.
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte says she will lobby to kill the bill.
She may not have to work too hard.
Already senators from both sides of the aisle say the legislation has no chance.
But somehow, if this bill defies the odds like it just has in the House, Governor Lynch has promised vowed to veto it.
For NHPR News, I’m Dan Gorenstein.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Where it belongs
Coverage of New Mexico's repeal of the death penalty continues not only with news stories but also with editorials, op-eds, and letters to the editor around the country. Here's one that emphasizes the victim's perspective, from MVFHR board member Walt Everett in the March 22 Pennsylvania Daily Item:
On March 18, Gov. Bill Richardson, of New Mexico, signed into law a bill that abolishes the death penalty in that state. Importantly, the repeal package, which includes other bills currently working their way through the New Mexico Legislature, places emphasis where it belongs: on murder victims' families.
When my 24-year-old son, Scott, was murdered in 1987, I was devastated. Losing a loved one to murder tears apart the lives of victims' family members. There are no easy answers. But I know that government policy must be redirected to programs that help those victims' family members heal.
New Mexico's bill to repeal the death penalty and replace it with life without the possibility of parole is a major step in that direction. The additional measures being considered as adjuncts to this newly enacted legislation focus on enabling New Mexico to use the savings gained from ending the death penalty to provide support to children of murder victims, provide services and programs to murder victims' families, and create a murder victims' family services fund. Another measure requires employers to provide time off for family members to attend judicial proceedings.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. It is too costly and has insufficient protections against wrongful executions.
It is time for Pennsylvania to follow New Mexico's lead in providing restitution for victims' family members, as well as alternatives to the death penalty.
Walter H. Everett,
Lewisburg
On March 18, Gov. Bill Richardson, of New Mexico, signed into law a bill that abolishes the death penalty in that state. Importantly, the repeal package, which includes other bills currently working their way through the New Mexico Legislature, places emphasis where it belongs: on murder victims' families.
When my 24-year-old son, Scott, was murdered in 1987, I was devastated. Losing a loved one to murder tears apart the lives of victims' family members. There are no easy answers. But I know that government policy must be redirected to programs that help those victims' family members heal.
New Mexico's bill to repeal the death penalty and replace it with life without the possibility of parole is a major step in that direction. The additional measures being considered as adjuncts to this newly enacted legislation focus on enabling New Mexico to use the savings gained from ending the death penalty to provide support to children of murder victims, provide services and programs to murder victims' families, and create a murder victims' family services fund. Another measure requires employers to provide time off for family members to attend judicial proceedings.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. It is too costly and has insufficient protections against wrongful executions.
It is time for Pennsylvania to follow New Mexico's lead in providing restitution for victims' family members, as well as alternatives to the death penalty.
Walter H. Everett,
Lewisburg
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Orphaned by the state
When MVFHR Board Vice-Chair Robert Meeropol was doing a series of speaking engagements in Germany earlier this month, he also did an interview with the British newspaper the Guardian, and on Saturday (March 21) they published this piece, titled "Orphaned by the state":
It's early evening on Friday 19 June 1953, and in a garden in New Jersey two little boys, brothers aged six and 10, are playing baseball. The light starts to fade, but the boys play on. Strangely, because this isn't normally how it is, no adults come to call them in. The children continue. Eventually it gets so dark that they can't see the ball any more. But still they go on playing.
Deep in their hearts, these little boys know that something appalling, something devastating, something almost too terrible to contemplate, is happening. Deep in their hearts, they know that as soon as they step back into the house, their lives will be changed horribly, and for ever.
Eventually, reluctantly, the boys head inside. Robert, the younger of the two, is a bit hazy about what happens next. He remembers Michael, his brother, becoming distraught, and he remembers the adults trying to console him. He remembers realising, with the black-and-white clarity of a child's take on the world, that his six-year-old brain simply isn't equipped to deal with the awfulness of the evening's events. He remembers going to bed, and trying to shut everything out. He remembers feeling that if he just feigns ignorance the grown-ups will leave him alone and then he can start to deal with the nightmare as best he can.
What has just happened is that Robert and Michael's parents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, have been executed. At one minute before sundown, while the children were in the garden, their parents - one aged 35, the other 37 - were strapped into an electric chair in Sing Sing prison, near New York. Julius first, then Ethel. In the time that elapsed between the boys going out to play and coming inside again, their country has made them orphans.
Even more than half a century on, it's hard to hear this story without being affected by its magnitude. As Robert Meeropol describes what happened on that evening 56 years ago, I have tears in my eyes. When Meeropol describes how, earlier that same day, his brother began moaning, "That's it then! Goodbye, goodbye"; when the news flashed on to the television that the executions were going ahead that night; and when he describes seeing the press reports counting down his parents' final days, I can hardly bear to listen.
Meeropol (whose name was later changed to that of the couple who adopted him) is used to journalists getting emotional on him. "It's different for you," he says understandingly, "I've lived with this all my life; I'm used to it." But how does anyone get used to the fact that their parents have been put to death by their country; how does anyone pick up the pieces of a childhood left that broken? What is most extraordinary about Meeropol, in fact, is how entirely ordinary he seems today. We meet in Berlin, where he is currently on a book and campaigning tour. Now 62, bespectacled and balding, he is every inch the liberal east-coast lawyer and grandfather he has become. Yet, as he's the first to point out, his life is permeated by the story of the parents he knew for such a short space of time: their legacy has taken up much of his life, certainly much of his last 30 years, and fighting against the death penalty, and being an advocate for children who suffer as he did because of their parents' politics, is now his full-time occupation.
Read the rest of the article.
It's early evening on Friday 19 June 1953, and in a garden in New Jersey two little boys, brothers aged six and 10, are playing baseball. The light starts to fade, but the boys play on. Strangely, because this isn't normally how it is, no adults come to call them in. The children continue. Eventually it gets so dark that they can't see the ball any more. But still they go on playing.
Deep in their hearts, these little boys know that something appalling, something devastating, something almost too terrible to contemplate, is happening. Deep in their hearts, they know that as soon as they step back into the house, their lives will be changed horribly, and for ever.
Eventually, reluctantly, the boys head inside. Robert, the younger of the two, is a bit hazy about what happens next. He remembers Michael, his brother, becoming distraught, and he remembers the adults trying to console him. He remembers realising, with the black-and-white clarity of a child's take on the world, that his six-year-old brain simply isn't equipped to deal with the awfulness of the evening's events. He remembers going to bed, and trying to shut everything out. He remembers feeling that if he just feigns ignorance the grown-ups will leave him alone and then he can start to deal with the nightmare as best he can.
What has just happened is that Robert and Michael's parents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, have been executed. At one minute before sundown, while the children were in the garden, their parents - one aged 35, the other 37 - were strapped into an electric chair in Sing Sing prison, near New York. Julius first, then Ethel. In the time that elapsed between the boys going out to play and coming inside again, their country has made them orphans.
Even more than half a century on, it's hard to hear this story without being affected by its magnitude. As Robert Meeropol describes what happened on that evening 56 years ago, I have tears in my eyes. When Meeropol describes how, earlier that same day, his brother began moaning, "That's it then! Goodbye, goodbye"; when the news flashed on to the television that the executions were going ahead that night; and when he describes seeing the press reports counting down his parents' final days, I can hardly bear to listen.
Meeropol (whose name was later changed to that of the couple who adopted him) is used to journalists getting emotional on him. "It's different for you," he says understandingly, "I've lived with this all my life; I'm used to it." But how does anyone get used to the fact that their parents have been put to death by their country; how does anyone pick up the pieces of a childhood left that broken? What is most extraordinary about Meeropol, in fact, is how entirely ordinary he seems today. We meet in Berlin, where he is currently on a book and campaigning tour. Now 62, bespectacled and balding, he is every inch the liberal east-coast lawyer and grandfather he has become. Yet, as he's the first to point out, his life is permeated by the story of the parents he knew for such a short space of time: their legacy has taken up much of his life, certainly much of his last 30 years, and fighting against the death penalty, and being an advocate for children who suffer as he did because of their parents' politics, is now his full-time occupation.
Read the rest of the article.
Monday, March 23, 2009
I've dedicated my life
From yesterday's online edition of the (Indiana) Tribune-Star, "Anti-death penalty advocate brings message of Hope to Valley":
All the electricity in the execution chair won’t bring Bill Pelke’s grandmother back to life. And that’s just one of his points.
“I’ve dedicated my life to the abolition of the death penalty,” the 61-year-old retired steelworker said Sunday as he prepared for two presentations in Terre Haute on Tuesday.
On May 14, 1985, Ruth Pelke, a Bible teacher in Gary, was murdered by four teenage girls inside her own home. According to Pelke, the four high school freshmen attended nearby Lew Wallace High School, where his own father had gone, and had decided to skip school that day.
The girls had been drinking and smoking marijuana when they decided to play video games at an arcade and needed money. One of the girls lived near a woman who was known to teach Bible lessons in her home, so the group went there and knocked on the door under the pretense of wanting a lesson.
Once inside, one girl hit Pelke over the head with a vase while the others stabbed her 33 times until she died.
Paula Cooper, then 15, was determined to have been the ringleader of the attack and was sentenced to death on July 11, 1986.
Pelke was in his 20th year at Bethlehem Steel, and at the time, fully in favor of executing his grandmother’s murderer.
But as he reflected on her life and the faith she had taught him, his views began to change. And when Pelke saw Cooper’s own grandfather forced from the courtroom for his emotional outburst at the death sentence handed “his baby,” he decided his grandmother “would have had compassion on her and her grandfather.”
What started as a simple prayer for the power to forgive began a transformation which Pelke described as life-changing, as he switched sides and crusaded for Cooper’s removal from death row.
More than 2 million signatures and Pope John Paul II’s request later, Cooper’s death sentence was commuted to 60 years in 1989.
Pelke retired from Bethlehem Steel 12 years after his grandmother’s death and has recently authored the book “Journey of Hope … From Violence to Healing” in conjunction with 20 years of anti-death penalty advocacy, crossing 40 states and 10 nations to tell his story and make his case with his own Journey of Hope Organization and the Indiana Information Center on Abolition of Capital Punishment.
As Pelke explained, it wasn’t until he remembered his grandmother’s compassion that he could forget the way she died to celebrate the way she lived.
“I agree that society has a right to protect itself from violent people,” he said Sunday afternoon, noting that Indiana, like many states, offers a sentence of life without parole.
And broken down in dollars, the prison term often makes more sense.
“It’s cheaper to keep a person in prison for life,” he said, noting the cost of mounting a death penalty case can often be three or four times more expensive. But, “even if the costs were the same, I’d rather feed them than kill them,” he said.
Read the rest of the article.
All the electricity in the execution chair won’t bring Bill Pelke’s grandmother back to life. And that’s just one of his points.
“I’ve dedicated my life to the abolition of the death penalty,” the 61-year-old retired steelworker said Sunday as he prepared for two presentations in Terre Haute on Tuesday.
On May 14, 1985, Ruth Pelke, a Bible teacher in Gary, was murdered by four teenage girls inside her own home. According to Pelke, the four high school freshmen attended nearby Lew Wallace High School, where his own father had gone, and had decided to skip school that day.
The girls had been drinking and smoking marijuana when they decided to play video games at an arcade and needed money. One of the girls lived near a woman who was known to teach Bible lessons in her home, so the group went there and knocked on the door under the pretense of wanting a lesson.
Once inside, one girl hit Pelke over the head with a vase while the others stabbed her 33 times until she died.
Paula Cooper, then 15, was determined to have been the ringleader of the attack and was sentenced to death on July 11, 1986.
Pelke was in his 20th year at Bethlehem Steel, and at the time, fully in favor of executing his grandmother’s murderer.
But as he reflected on her life and the faith she had taught him, his views began to change. And when Pelke saw Cooper’s own grandfather forced from the courtroom for his emotional outburst at the death sentence handed “his baby,” he decided his grandmother “would have had compassion on her and her grandfather.”
What started as a simple prayer for the power to forgive began a transformation which Pelke described as life-changing, as he switched sides and crusaded for Cooper’s removal from death row.
More than 2 million signatures and Pope John Paul II’s request later, Cooper’s death sentence was commuted to 60 years in 1989.
Pelke retired from Bethlehem Steel 12 years after his grandmother’s death and has recently authored the book “Journey of Hope … From Violence to Healing” in conjunction with 20 years of anti-death penalty advocacy, crossing 40 states and 10 nations to tell his story and make his case with his own Journey of Hope Organization and the Indiana Information Center on Abolition of Capital Punishment.
As Pelke explained, it wasn’t until he remembered his grandmother’s compassion that he could forget the way she died to celebrate the way she lived.
“I agree that society has a right to protect itself from violent people,” he said Sunday afternoon, noting that Indiana, like many states, offers a sentence of life without parole.
And broken down in dollars, the prison term often makes more sense.
“It’s cheaper to keep a person in prison for life,” he said, noting the cost of mounting a death penalty case can often be three or four times more expensive. But, “even if the costs were the same, I’d rather feed them than kill them,” he said.
Read the rest of the article.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Is it "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" punishment?
From the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, "Is the death penalty a cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment under international law?":
The United Nations's special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, caused a stir at the tenth session of the UN's Human Rights Council by releasing a report in which he recommended investigating whether the death penalty was a cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
“The differing views reached by the Human Rights Committee and other authorities in grappling with the question whether detention on death row and if various methods of execution are compatible with the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment suggest the need for a different, more fundamental approach to the matter”, he wrote.
His report draws a parallel with corporal punishment, deemed acceptable a few decades ago and now banned in international law.
While he acknowledged that the death penalty is not currently banned by global treaties, he suggested that a “more comprehensive legal study” be carried out to take modern interpretations of the law into account.
“I proposed to interpret the death penalty in light of the present-day understanding of 'cruel, unusual or degrading treatment and punishment',” he explained when he presented his report on March 12, 2009, adding that that notion “has been evolving”.
Two World Coalition member organisations with consultative status at the UN welcomed the report. In a statement on behalf of the World Coalition, the International Federation of ACATs (FIACAT) said the death penalty “should be banned in international law and opposed by all means”. It urged the Human Rights Committee to go ahead with the comprehensive legal study suggested by the rapporteur.
World Coalition members Penal Reform International, National Coalition for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, National Association of Criminal Lawyers and Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights co-signed the statement. ...
The United Nations's special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, caused a stir at the tenth session of the UN's Human Rights Council by releasing a report in which he recommended investigating whether the death penalty was a cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
“The differing views reached by the Human Rights Committee and other authorities in grappling with the question whether detention on death row and if various methods of execution are compatible with the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment suggest the need for a different, more fundamental approach to the matter”, he wrote.
His report draws a parallel with corporal punishment, deemed acceptable a few decades ago and now banned in international law.
While he acknowledged that the death penalty is not currently banned by global treaties, he suggested that a “more comprehensive legal study” be carried out to take modern interpretations of the law into account.
“I proposed to interpret the death penalty in light of the present-day understanding of 'cruel, unusual or degrading treatment and punishment',” he explained when he presented his report on March 12, 2009, adding that that notion “has been evolving”.
Two World Coalition member organisations with consultative status at the UN welcomed the report. In a statement on behalf of the World Coalition, the International Federation of ACATs (FIACAT) said the death penalty “should be banned in international law and opposed by all means”. It urged the Human Rights Committee to go ahead with the comprehensive legal study suggested by the rapporteur.
World Coalition members Penal Reform International, National Coalition for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, National Association of Criminal Lawyers and Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights co-signed the statement. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)