For What It's Worth

Today will be my last day in the office as an intern for InCASE. I've enjoyed the learning process and the time I've been able to spend under Will's "wing". I'd like to leave with a blog about thoughts of mine over the course of the summer.

First, to mention the trial process. I've seen that if the defendant can afford a lawyer, the prosecutor is less likely to try for a capital offense because it uses up a lot of money, but since most death row offenders can't afford a lawyer, they face death trials because the prosecutor chooses to try for a death sentence because they like their chances of winning.

Secondly, money shouldn't be the deciding factor of some one's life.

Thirdly, where is the money going? To the death penalty trial processes? How is that serving justice and providing for a better society? Why not put it towards victim families, organizations for the mentally ill, rehabilitation treatment, etc...?

Fourth, part of the death penalty problem comes with the question of "What is the worst of the worst?" Well, unfortunately, it largely depends on towns/counties, the media, and heinousness of the crime. It's also a matter of public opinion. The decisions that are made saying a case is the worst of the worst is saying that some acts are worst than others...but they're all murders! Equality doesn't exist in this system. The nation's most prolific serial killer, Gary Ridgway, murdered 48 women (prostitutes) yet didn't receive the death penalty in a death penalty state, Washington. Instead he received life in prison with no parole due to a plea agreement in which he confessed to the murders and helped locate the bodies. So what does this say? That you can take a life but your life will be spared because you helped law enforcement clear some unsolved cases? I do think life should be spared, but rather, this goes to show that the death penalty as a response to any criminal behavior no longer has "validity and should be repealed, because it is impossible to administer with justice and fairness". Because wouldn't killing 48 people be the worst of the worst?

Fifth. We should be held to a higher standard. Our laws do not allow us to rob the robber or rape the rapist, so why should we kill the killer? "Laws are made to protect people, people are not made to protect the law!"

Sixth. Should the U.S. be more unified on death penalty policy rather than state ruled? There are clearly a lot of differences between northeastern states versus southern states, but would one consistent law be able to better serve society?

Lastly, what would it take to make sure that everyone receives a fair trial? In this system, I'm not sure if it's possible. Just the fact of arbitrariness doesn't allow for everyone to receive a fair trial because one murderer could be tried for death whereas another one is tried for life in prison. Who's to decide?

These are just some of the things that have allowed me to better form my perspective on the execution process. Working for a moratorium specific coalition has given me the opportunity to fully research the cause and get a look as to what the system is. I fully support a moratorium on the death penalty, and I argue that it should, indeed, be abolished due to the injustices and unfairness of the process, as well as the immorality of it's purpose. Not only is it unfair to the offenders, but I see it as unfair to the family members of the victim as well (well, depending on what their views are on the death penalty...I guess the system is prejudice on that as well)!

...Don't forget about the family members of the victims! Be respectful of the grievance process by simply allowing it to take place.

Louisiana Asks to Review Last Month's Rape Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked by lawyers in Louisiana to reconsider its decision last month striking down laws that made child rape a capital offense. The Kennedy v. Louisiana decision was a huge win for anti-death penalty proponents, but the lawyers are saying the court's decision overlooked two crucial legal developments. One being the 2006 federal law and the second being the 2007 executive order making child rape a capital crime under military law.

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford who represented the defendant in the case, Patrick Kennedy, said "rehearing is completely unnecessary." Military law does not apply to Mr. Kennedy, a civilian, Professor Fisher said, and Congress has not made child rape a capital offense for civilians.
Professor Fisher added that military law has long made rapes of both adults and children capital offenses in some circumstances. The innovation of the 2006 law was only to break out children as a separate category.

To read the full article, visit http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/washington/22scotus.html?ei=5070&en=ba6db93444e6c643&ex=1217390400&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1216746835-1PfblGF53EPrWM89Xna7QQ
I think it is important to distinguish between federal law and state law, since we have after all already made them two separate things. According to wikipedia, state law in the U.S. is the "law of each separate U.S. state, as passed by state legislature. It exists in parallel, and sometimes in conflict with, U.S. federal law". Federal law is the common central government, and "formed when a group of political units, such as states or provinces join together in a federation, surrendering their individual sovereignty and many powers to the central government while retaining or reserving other limited powers. As a result, two or more levels of government exist within an established geographic territory".
And then there's military law which is a distinct legal system to which members of armed forces are subject (applicable to members of their military but not usually to civilians). In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is authorized to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces", which is federal law.
With all that said, I still don't understand why exactly our nation is run by separate law systems...especially if some contradict each other. But for this specific case, I think with the way the system is, military law should not be able to enact it's laws onto civilians, overriding state law and civil rights.

Should Lawyers Be Able to Break Confidentiality?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the law is in place to provide justice for all. Last month, I posted a blog about an article in which Alton Logan served time in prison for a crime he didn't commit while his lawyers knew the truth the whole time (even before the trial), yet couldn't say anything because of confidentiality rules. Yesterday an article was published by Colin Miller arguing that lawyers should be permitted to break the attornty-client privilege in order to prevent a wrongful conviction. In most states, "lawyers can only break their confidentiality to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm". Colin argues wrongful incarceration should be construed as bodily harm, which would allow lawyers to speak up about evidence that hinders thier confidentiality.

It will be interesting to see if any changes in the law are made, because I see this as something that is very important for the system to correct. Why should there be a law that knowingly incarcerates an innocent? Is the focus of the law really on protecting the people and providing justice for all, or is the system more interested in production? These are things for the system to follow-up on.

To read more on the article yesterday: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1471.php

Follow-Up on Roundtable Discussion

This past Monday night, IAPP held a death penalty roundtable discussion led by Will McAuliffe of InCASE (right), Chris Hitz-Bradley from IICACP (center), and local attorney Mary Spears of Kammen & Associates (left). The turn-out was fair. The event was free to the public, with about 15 in attendance. I attended the discussion with two fellow housemates from the Peace House, both of whom didn't have any knowledge of the current issues within the system so it was definitely interesting to hear their take on what was being said. Both of them left the discussion informed and interested in finding out more. Therefore, I'd consider this event to be a success.

Here are some highlights of the discussion:

• An estimated 60-70% of all death sentences are commuted, which increases costs. If the death penalty wasn't even an option, it would have saved the costs of those trials because LWOP could've ended the process immediately and spread out the costs over a number of years, allowing it to be cheaper.


• Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions


• Indiana is tied as the 14th state with the most executions since 1973


• A major roadblock to abolition is the arbitrariness of the system. The prosecutor ultimately gets to decide what punishment to seek for the offender, and often times, I see that it is a political decision and doesn't take into account the victim family members.

Sometimes it comes across as if the system is playing a game by picking and choosing which cases to try as a capital case. Is it time for another one? When was the last one?
Is that how the system should approach someone's life?

What can we do?

1. One important piece that I took from the discussion was from what Mary Spears said. She mentioned at the very end of the discussion that it is important for us, as citizens, to fulfill our jury duty. And when doing that duty, to be willing to say that we will consider the death penalty, because if you say one way or another, if you're biased, you won't be able to be on the jury.


2. Talk about it. Just as the discussion helped inform my friends, it can lead to someone else becoming interested in it simply through talking.


3. Another important aspect of abolition is lobbying. Look into it. Write to your legislators.

July 7th Death Penalty Roundtable Hosted by IAPP

The Indy Artists' Peace Project is hosting a roundtable discussion entitled "Abolishing the Death Penalty" Monday, July 7th from 7:00-8:30pm at the NORA Branch Library (map below). Participating will be InCASE Executive Director Will McAuliffe, IICACP Executive Director Chris Hitz-Bradley and local attorney Mary Spears of Kammen & Associates. Moderating the discussion will be Jeff Matheus and Michelle Gussow of the IAPP.

Admission is free for all. For more information e-mail indyartists@aol.com, or phone (317)255-0673.


View Larger Map

InCASE Gets Some Ink

Indianapolis weekly magazine Nuvo published an in-depth piece on InCASE Executive Director Will McAuliffe in today's issue. For those of you in the Indianapolis area, be sure to pick one up and for those who can't grab a copy, be sure to check it out online.:

Where many arguments about the death penalty revolve around the moral issue of whether the government should award itself the right to take the lives of certain citizens, McAuliffe takes a different tack. For him, the death penalty is nothing more than another government program. And as government programs go, McAuliffe finds it wanting.

“It hasn’t proven to do anything,” he says. “We spend about 40 percent more on it than it would cost to imprison somebody for the entirety of their life. What are we getting for that? There are no conclusive results. Capital punishment gets the least scrutiny and honest discussion by society as a whole.”

McAuliffe believes this lack of scrutiny is due, in part, to the perverse coupling of an elongated judicial process — it takes, on average, 12.5 years for capital cases to run a gauntlet of appeals before finally arriving at the death chamber door — and a society with a short attention span.

“We need to look at it and ask, what are we paying for? What are we getting?”

UPDATE: The Nuvo site has had a bit of trouble so the link has changed. You can find the InCASE Nuvo article here (links above updated as well).

Website Resources Updated

We've recently added two major sections to our expanding InCASE Resources page on the InCASE website. We now have relevant editorials from major papers around Indiana which demonstrate their stances on various death penalty-related issues. Additionally, we've added an "Additional Online Resources" section which highlights several excellent websites that provide death penalty information on a much larger scale.

Look for these and more revisions in the coming weeks. As always, your feedback is incredibly helpful in determining how we can better serve you.