Indiana Coalition Acting to Suspend Executions

Death Row Exoneree to Speak Nov. 7

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:41:00 +0000

Kerry Max Cook, Let Nothing Keep You Down, will lecture at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis on Friday, November 7th at 5 p.m. in the Wynne Courtroom Inlow Hall, with reception and book signing at 6 p.m. The event is free and open to the public. Cook is an advocate for legal reform and has lectured at Princeton, Yale, and the University of Chicago, as well as internationally since gaining his freedom from death row.

Cook was born in Stuttgart, Germany into an Army family, and spent much of his youth on Army bases. He returned to the United States with his family in 1972 to live in Texas. In 1997, at age 20, Cook was arrested and wrongly convicted of capital murder, a crime for which he would spend the next two decades on death row. Kerry Max Cook’s story was part of the critically acclaimed play and movie “The Exonerated.” Cook has appeared on Nightline, Geraldo, Catherine Crier Live, the Today Show, and Frontline.

Cook’s book, Chasing Justice, was voted “book of the year” in 2007 by Reader’s Digest and can be purchased at the reception and personally autographed. Books are $15 and cash or checks can be accepted. www.chasingjustice.com

Troy Davis Execution Stayed

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:06:00 +0000

The execution of Troy Davis which had been scheduled for October 27th was stayed by a federal appeals court last Friday:

Troy Davis, 40, was scheduled to be executed Monday for the murder of Savannah Police Officer Mark MacPhail. But the three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the execution and ordered his attorneys to prove whether he can meet "stringent requirements" to press his appeal.

Davis' supporters have called for a new trial because seven of the nine key witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and the doubts about his guilt have won him the support of former President Jimmy Carter and other prominent advocates.

It was the third time since July 2007 that Davis has been spared the death penalty by a late court decision.

A Quarter-Century Later, Zolo Azania Sentenced to 74 Years

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:09:00 +0000

Around 2:30 today, the state of Indiana dismissed its request for the death penalty for Zolo Azania in a deal for a sentence of 74 years.

Azania was originally convicted in 1982 and now, 26 years later, there is closure.

When 78% Testimony Recantation Isn't Enough

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:40:00 +0000

Troubling news from the Supreme Court:

AP:

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for a Georgia man to be put to death for killing a police officer two weeks after it halted his execution to consider his appeal.

Troy Davis asked the high court to intervene in his case and order a new trial because seven of the nine witnesses against him have recanted their testimony.

...Davis' lawyers say new evidence proves their client was a victim of mistaken identity. Besides those who have recanted their testimony, three others who did not testify have said Sylvester ''Red'' Coles -- who testified against Davis at his trial -- confessed to the killing.

SCOTUSblog:

Refusing to decide whether the death penalty is barred for an individual with a strong claim of innocence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned aside the appeal of Georgia death-row inmate Troy Anthony Davis. The order clears the way for the state to set a new execution date; a Supreme Court stay of the execution expired with the denial of review. The case is Davis v. Georgia (08-66).

Case Closed

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:36:00 +0000

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court added a footnote to the Kennedy v. Louisiana opinion and announced that they would not be rehearing it.

Certainly an appropriate and measured response to the revelation that they had missed a relevant federal statute when considering the case (none of the briefs mentioned the statute--a military blogger brought it up of all things).

Money Matters

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 02:37:00 +0000

Today's Star Press had this editorial on the death penalty and the role of its high costs in the debate about its use:

To intentionally take a human life -- whether it's a cold, calculated crime or merely carrying out the law of the land -- is the ultimate 'punishment.' No amount of genuine remorse or sudden insight can reverse the decision.

...There are plenty of legitimate arguments both in favor of and against capital punishment that get at the real heart of the issue, that frankly, makes the cost issue ridiculous by comparison.
We're talking about the taking of a human life, not whether or not to purchase a new courthouse. To bring money into the equation only adds to the argument that capital punishment is unjust.

And then, the kicker:

It's time for discussion on a state-wide level, with a state-wide solution.

Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy weighs in:

Put simply, it costs millions of dollars for a state to weigh heavily "every facet of each and every case," and thus the death penalty is always going to be an expensive enterprise. Unless and until taxpayers promise never to complain about tax increases, I find it badly misguided and quite dangerous to assert that cost issues are off the table in a debate over capital punishment.

While I agree that perhaps in a perfect world, cost would not be a defining factor in how people feel about the death penalty and the gravity of its irreversibility, we live in a world with limited and seemingly ever-scarcer resources at every level of government. The fiscal and human resources that the death penalty diverts from other programs that may more effectively keep the public safe should disturb many, and tends to be the tipping point for many audience members during presentations that I give.

I couldn't agree more with the editorial's point that the costs create an uneven playing surface and that we need a real, honest, and informed discussion around the state to determine how to address this and the many other flaws and big questions that make Hoosiers uncomfortable with the current system.

Indiana Lawyer Examines Innocence in Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:18:00 +0000

This week's Indiana Lawyer has two excellent articles looking at DNA evidence and cases of wrongful conviction in Indiana. The first is a profile of exoneree Larry Mayes:

“I just couldn’t believe they’d put someone innocent away like they did,” Mayes said, reflecting on his wrongful conviction. “I’d heard people talk about this, but I never would have believed it until I experienced it for my own self. But it does happen, and it’s been a long, hard road.”

The second details the work done by the Innocence Project and the IU-Indy Defense Clinic in taking cases of potentially innocent defendants:

It’s an ongoing saga unfolding nationwide, and the numbers continue to increase. Before 2008, Indiana had five exonerations. Now, six have been freed, and other defendants who’ve maintained their innocence from the start are attempting to obtain their own exonerations.

...“It’s awful to have someone in prison you believe is innocent,” said Fran Watson, an attorney and Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis professor who leads a criminal defense clinic that handles wrongful-conviction cases. “It’s not just enough to be innocent; you have to show the violation. As long as it takes, you’re particularly glad when justice gets done, finally."

DNA testing continues to improve, becoming more accessible to more defendants. However, it still isn't cheap and you can only test DNA in cases where such evidence exists. Of the 129 death row exonerations, DNA was a significant factor in only 16 of the cases.

In fact, today is the final day of a fundraising effort by the Innocence Project to acquire testing for their defendants. If you're so inclined, head to their website and make a donation to push them over their goal.

America Continues to Execute Fewer

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:01:00 +0000

Professor Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy makes this poignant observation:

...before tonight there had not been a single execution in the United States in over a month.

...Barring an unlikely rush of Fall executions, it appears that this year there will be the fewest total number of executions in the United States since 1994.

Hopefully this trickle of executions rather than the flood that many anticipated will create the appropriate environment for the crucial and fundamental questions to be asked about the death penalty around the country.

Victims’ Families Gather to Oppose Death Sentences for the Mentally Ill

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:41:00 +0000

All too often, victims' family members are either ignored in the death penalty debate, or are used for political gain and to inspire knee-jerk reactions. The reality is that the death penalty is much more complex and nuanced than we'd like and it is exactly for this reason that Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights and the National Alliance on Mental Illness have joined forces to bring together 20 families of victims and executed alike who have been effected by mental illness and the death penalty on October 3rd in San Antonio.

This is a great effort by both respected organizations and those of us who are working on the policy end of the issue always appreciate the profound courage and compassion of those who have been effected so personally.

You can read more about the project here and read MVFHR's blog here.

Kennedy v Louisiana Rumblings

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:10:00 +0000

While the Supreme Court had struck down execution of child rapists as unconstitutional this past June in the case Kennedy v. Louisiana, in the interim it was discovered that all the parties involved completely overlooked a federal statute that permitted this penalty through the military justice system.

This past Monday, the Court asked for new briefs so that they may consider a rehearing. From SCOTUSBlog:

The briefs are to discuss two issues, according to the order: first, whether to grant rehearing of the June 25 decision, and second, what action — if any — the Court should take if it does reopen the case. Here is the way the Court phrased its inquiries: “whether rehearing should be granted” and “the merits of the issue raised in the petition for rehearing” filed by the state of Louisiana on July 21.
That issue, of course, is whether the Court should modify or expand the substance of its ruling in the case because the decision did not take account of a federal law authorizing a death sentence for child rape as part of the military justice system. This embraces several other related issues: Will the Court rethink its conclusion that there is a “national consensus” against the penalty for that crime? Will it clarify whether one basis for its decision (the absence of a “national consensus”) was more important than the second basis (the Court’s independent view that the punishment was excessive for the crime)? Will it make clear whether rulings under the Eighth Amendment apply to the same degree in the military justice system as in civilian courts? Will it comment in any way on the constitutionality of the military justice provision for the death penalty for child rape?

As always, excellent questions but no answers for a while.

Jonothan Adler at Volokh Consipiracy weighs in:

The Court's decision to seek briefing on the question of rehearing is heartening news, as I believe the Supreme Court needs to rehear the case if for no other reason than to restore the Court's tarnished credibility.

Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy has a number of posts that track the progression of this case up to this point.

Innocence Project and the death penalty

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:49:00 +0000

Baltimore Sun:

Also testifying yesterday was Barry Scheck, director of an Innocence Project in New York. Similar advocacy organizations exist in Maryland and elsewhere. Considered the father of post-conviction DNA testing, Scheck said DNA has helped win freedom for 220 wrongfully convicted people. Death penalty opponents say 129 of them had been sentenced to death.

"More innocent people are being convicted than anyone ever thought," Scheck said.

He told the commission that while reasonable people may disagree on the morality of the death penalty, no one wants innocent people to be executed.

That's a statement that is as true in Indiana as anywhere else with 40% of Hoosiers believing that innocent people have been wrongfully sentenced to death in the past 5 years. Hoosiers also believe that about 3% of those executed were innocent of their crimes. (Poll data from the ABA Moratorium Project found here).

[The Innocence Blog]

Mental Illness and the Death Penalty

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:22:00 +0000

As there may be some discussion about the exemption of the mentally ill from the death penalty here in Indiana, I wanted to be sure to highlight Prevention Not Punishment, a great resource that has focused on this issue in Texas.

Some key posts to catch up on:
Upholding Legal Rights of the Mentally Ill
Improving Relations Between Law Enforcement and the Mentally Ill
Coverage of the Indiana v. Edwards Decision
NAMI Joins with MVFHR in Groundbreaking New Project
NAMI Advocate Speaks About Death Penalty

Labor Day

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:19:00 +0000

Happy Labor Day, readers. Keep New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in your thoughts and prayers.

[America Red Cross]

142 Months from Sentence to Execution

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:52:00 +0000

This U.S.A. Today article of July 23rd discusses the increased time between sentence and execution nationally:

The time prisoners spend on death row has nearly doubled during the past two decades. Legal experts predict it will rise further as states review execution procedures and prisoners pursue lengthy appeals.
Waits rose from seven years in 1986 to 12 years in 2006, the latest Justice Department statistics show. In all five states with the most prisoners on death row — California, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and Alabama — offenders spend more time in prison than they did four years ago, a USA TODAY survey of state records through 2007 found.

In California, wait times average nearly 20 years, a state commission report in June says. It costs about $90,000 more per year to house a death row inmate than other inmates.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's lethal injection method, ending an informal halt to executions nationwide for seven months. Of the 10 states with the most prisoners on death row, five launched their own reviews of lethal injection procedures in the past two years. Those resulted in suspensions or delays in executions.

The knee-jerk reaction often heard to these numbers is "why can't we kill them faster?" Well, the answer is simple: "It's complicated." The legal process that we've developed in this country relies on both defendants and the state being able to appeal decisions and make claims regarding a trial's fairness. These are bedrock constitutional principles which are too-often cast aside as "technicalities".

These appeals aren't because someone's toe was over the line during closing arguments. They have to do with issues like prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of minorities in juries, the constitutionality of lethal injection and access to adequate defense, just to name a few.

It can be a torturous wait for victims' families that support the execution, no question, but it's wrong to cede the basic elements of fairness that make this country what it is for the sake of expedited comfort of a few, no matter how grievous the crime.

Indiana numbers on average trial length aren't at hand but will be posted someone next week as a follow-up.

[h/t Sentencing Law and Policy]

Back in Business

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:55:00 +0000

Loyal Readers,

Sorry for the unannounced, and frankly unintended, blogging hiatus. I'll be making much more an effort to bring you up to speed on the news here in Indiana and the InCASE happenings from here on out. Stay tuned!

For What It's Worth

noreply@blogger.com (David Durica) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:34:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (David Durica) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:21:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (David Durica) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:06:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (David Durica) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:37:00 +0000

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?

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.

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

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

July 7th Death Penalty Roundtable Hosted by IAPP

noreply@blogger.com (Will McAuliffe) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:53:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:48:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:51:00 +0000

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.

The Effect of Deterrence

noreply@blogger.com (David Durica) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:35:00 +0000

The Washington Post published an article today in regards to the puzzling debate over whether or not deterrence is a legitimate argument. As I was reading through, nothing came as a surprise or caught my attention...until the end. This article states both positions, which is ultimately stating that neither is justified as an argument. But the article concludes by saying,

A prominent line of reasoning, endorsed by several justices, holds that if capital punishment fails to deter crime, it serves no useful purpose and hence is cruel and unusual, violating the Eighth Amendment.

So, if there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrant to murder, then shouldn't the death penalty be eliminated? Here is the whole article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901476.html?referrer=emailarticle

Supreme Court: Death Penalty Reserved "for crimes that take the life of the victim"

noreply@blogger.com (InCASE) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:46:00 +0000

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down Louisiana's law allowing a death sentence for those guilty of child rape. The Kennedy v. Louisiana opinion additionally extended the current understanding of death-eligible crimes, clarifying that the death penalty is “for crimes that take the life of the victim."

More from SCOTUSblog:

Barring the death penalty for any crime that does not take the life of an individual victim, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. If the victim does not die and death was not intended, capital punishment for that crime violates the Eighth Amendment, the Court ruled in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The case was Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343). The broad declaration that death sentences should be reserved “for crimes that take the life of the victim” will apply, the Court said, to crimes against individuals...

You can find the opinion here.

Swift, Severe, and Certain

noreply@blogger.com (David Durica) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:16:00 +0000

Throughout my research involving 'Victim Outreach', I've come across statements regarding "harsh" penalties. In many circumstances, simply the sense of feeling that their case is receiving the harshest penalty that exists is all that is needed. Margaret Vandiver explains this by writing, "Any sentence lighter than the maximum provided by law runs the risk of seeming to indicate that the criminal justice system, or society in general, did not properly value the victim's life or comprehend the magnitude of the family's loss".

So I bring up the question[s] of the day. If the death penalty didn't exist, and an offender was sentenced to the most severe penalty of LWOP, wouldn't the family members feel justified? The problem with that today would be that we know the death penalty does and can exist, but whether it should has yet to be determined. Our system is principled on a 'code'. A code that says it [the system] is to be swift, severe, and certain. It's easy to tell that this isn't always the case when it comes to crime. So, if we're striving for a system of swiftness, shouldn't we revise the system? LWOP allows the family members to end their involvement with the criminal justice system, whereas a sentence of death drags out the process. Afterall, isn't it all about the victim families? It's easy to say, and I think most everyone would agree, that the murderer deserves to die, but does that mean that they should die? If the death penalty exists, doesn't that pressure surviving members to support the punishment simply because it is the most severe? How can we be certain?
...support a moratorium!