Jeanne Woodford a former warden of San Quentin State Prison said about the death penalty,"The death penalty serves no one." She added, "It doesn't serve the victims. It doesn't serve prevention. It's truly
all about retribution."
According to Tom Hennessy of the Long Beach Star-Telegraph, she is not alone. In provided 25 other notable people, widely quoted on a variety of websites, express their views on capital punishment.
A justice's view
1. "... the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent."
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr.
2. "I was eight years old when my father was murdered. It is almost impossible to describe the pain of losing a parent to a senseless murder ... But even as a child, one thing was clear to me: I didn't want the killer, in turn, to be killed. I remember lying in bed and praying, `Please, God. Please don't take his life, too.' I saw nothing that could be accomplished in the loss of one life being answered with the loss of another."
Kerry Kennedy, daughter of the late Sen. Bobby Kennedy.
3. "If not remedied, the scandalous state of our present system of capital punishment will cast a pall of shame over our society for years to come. We cannot let it continue."
Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1990.
4. "You believe an eye for an eye until you are put in that situation. If they kill those guys, it really doesn't mean much to me. My father is gone."
Basketball player Michael Jordan on the murderers of his father, James.
5. "Government ... can't be trusted to control its own bureaucrats or collect taxes equitably or fill a pothole, much less decide which of its citizens to kill."
Sister Helen Prejean, author of "Dead Man Walking."
6. "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul."
Mark Twain.
Primitive nation?
7. "It's just really tragic after all the horrors of the last 1,000 years we can't leave behind something as primitive as government-sponsored execution."
Sen. Russ Feingold.
8. "To top it off, for those of you who are interested in the economics, it costs more to pursue a capital case toward execution than it does to have full life imprisonment without parole."
Ralph Nader.
9. "Capital punishment, like the rest of the criminal justice system, is a government program, so skepticism is in order."
George Will.
10. "A humane and generous concern for every individual, his health and his fulfillment, will do more to soothe the savage heart than the fear of state-inflicted death, which chiefly serves to remind us how close we remain to the jungle."
U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
11. "When you execute a man who has been on death row seven, eight, 10 or 12 years, you are not executing the same man that came in."
Don Cabana, former warden of Mississippi's Parchman Penitentiary.
12. "Here I want to say that one must be careful in searching his soul ... one may just find that God is there and that he does not support the barbaric idea that man should execute man."
Ron McAndrew, former warden of Florida State Prison.
13. "To me the death penalty is vengeance, and vengeance doesn't really help anyone in the healing process."
Bud Welch, board president, Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights. His daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing.
14. "No man has the right to take God's place and say another man should die. It destroyed my life."
Perry Cobb, who spent eight years on Illinois' death row for a crime he did not commit. He was exonerated in 1987.
District attorney's view
15. "California's death penalty is ... an incredibly costly penalty, and the money would be better spent keeping kids in school, keeping teachers and counselors in their schools and giving the juvenile justice system the resources it needs."
Former Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti.
16. "Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders."
French philosopher Albert Camus.
17. "My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this."
The Dalai Lama.
18. "People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty."
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
19. "To say that the death of any other person would be just retribution is to insult the immeasurable worth of our loved ones who are victims."
Marietta Jaeger. Her daughter, Susie, age 7, was kidnapped and murdered in 1973.
20. "I do not think that God approved the death penalty for any crime, rape and murdered included. Capital punishment is against the best judgment of modern criminology and, above all, against the highest expression of love in the nature of God."
Martin Luther King Jr.
21. "I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don't think it's human to become an Angel of Death."
Nobel laureate, Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.
22. "The reality is that capital punishment in America is a lottery. It is a punishment that is shaped by the constraints of poverty, race, geography and local politics."
Bryan Stevenson, death row lawyer.
23. "Most people approve of capital punishment, but most people wouldn't do the hangman's job."
George Orwell.
24. "I believe that no one should be executed, guilty or innocent. There are appropriate sanctions that protect society and punish wrongdoers without forcing us to stoop to the level of the least among us at his or her worst moment."
Actor and activist Mike Farrell.
25. "I have come to think that capital punishment should be abolished."
Jack Kemp, Republican vice presidential candidate, 1996.
To read more: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_19022545
Showing posts with label Prosecutors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prosecutors. Show all posts
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Cautionary Instruction: Dueling reports on wrongful convictions
Matthew T. Mangino
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
September 30, 2011
Last week the long awaited Report of the Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions was issued by the Joint State Government Commission. The very first page of the report contains a telling caveat, “The release of this report should not be interpreted as an endorsement by members of the Executive Committee of the… [Report’s] conclusions.”
The caveat was an understatement. The law enforcement and victim representation members of the Commission issued their own Independent Report included in the advisory committtee's overall document starting at Page 309.
The Advisory Committee Report and the Independent Report both agree that the primary purpose of the committee was to review cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated and offer recommendations to reduce the possibility of future wrongful convictions.
That appears to be one of the last points of agreement between the competing reports. Initially the two groups disagreed as to the definition of “wrongfully convicted.” The Committee suggested, in a footnote, the official acts which could result in exoneration: “pardons based on innocence, judicial dismissals of criminal charges after evidence of innocence emerged and acquittals on retrial based upon evidence of no involvement in the crimes.”
The Independent Report took issue with that definition, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court held that an acquittal “does not prove that the defendant is innocent.” The Independent Report succinctly pointed out that the burden of proof in criminal cases requires proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a jury must acquit “someone who is probably guilty but whose guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The fundamental disagreement between the two reports -- did the Committee review only innocent persons wrongfully convicted. The Committee Report suggested that 11 people in Pennsylvania have been exonerated “partly or totally on the basis of DNA.” The Independent Report acknowledged that in one of the 11 cases cited by the Committee, “it is clear that and individual was wrongfully convicted.” However, considerable space in the Independent Report is dedicated to arguing that the remaining 10 individuals are not factually innocent.
Why is the definition of “wrongfully convicted” so important to the authors of the Independent Report? The Independent Report suggested, “The mis-definition of 'innocent' persons to include scores of guilty defendants means that the 'reforms' based on the mis-definition are likely to reward the guilty and make their convictions less likely in the future.” The Committee Report contended, “These exonerations challenge long-accepted assumptions in the soundness of certain practices of the criminal justice system.” The Committee Chairman, Duquesne University law professor John Rago, said "Mistakes happen—the question becomes how do we respond to our mistakes.”
Over the next couple of weeks The Cautionary Instruction will examine the recommendations put forth in the Advisory Committee Report and the Independent Report.
Visit Matt Mangino's Blog
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
September 30, 2011
Last week the long awaited Report of the Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions was issued by the Joint State Government Commission. The very first page of the report contains a telling caveat, “The release of this report should not be interpreted as an endorsement by members of the Executive Committee of the… [Report’s] conclusions.”
The caveat was an understatement. The law enforcement and victim representation members of the Commission issued their own Independent Report included in the advisory committtee's overall document starting at Page 309.
The Advisory Committee Report and the Independent Report both agree that the primary purpose of the committee was to review cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated and offer recommendations to reduce the possibility of future wrongful convictions.
That appears to be one of the last points of agreement between the competing reports. Initially the two groups disagreed as to the definition of “wrongfully convicted.” The Committee suggested, in a footnote, the official acts which could result in exoneration: “pardons based on innocence, judicial dismissals of criminal charges after evidence of innocence emerged and acquittals on retrial based upon evidence of no involvement in the crimes.”
The Independent Report took issue with that definition, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court held that an acquittal “does not prove that the defendant is innocent.” The Independent Report succinctly pointed out that the burden of proof in criminal cases requires proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a jury must acquit “someone who is probably guilty but whose guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The fundamental disagreement between the two reports -- did the Committee review only innocent persons wrongfully convicted. The Committee Report suggested that 11 people in Pennsylvania have been exonerated “partly or totally on the basis of DNA.” The Independent Report acknowledged that in one of the 11 cases cited by the Committee, “it is clear that and individual was wrongfully convicted.” However, considerable space in the Independent Report is dedicated to arguing that the remaining 10 individuals are not factually innocent.
Why is the definition of “wrongfully convicted” so important to the authors of the Independent Report? The Independent Report suggested, “The mis-definition of 'innocent' persons to include scores of guilty defendants means that the 'reforms' based on the mis-definition are likely to reward the guilty and make their convictions less likely in the future.” The Committee Report contended, “These exonerations challenge long-accepted assumptions in the soundness of certain practices of the criminal justice system.” The Committee Chairman, Duquesne University law professor John Rago, said "Mistakes happen—the question becomes how do we respond to our mistakes.”
Over the next couple of weeks The Cautionary Instruction will examine the recommendations put forth in the Advisory Committee Report and the Independent Report.
Visit Matt Mangino's Blog
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
It's Time for Pennsylvania to Get Moving Against Wrongful Convictions
Matthew T. Mangino
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly
August 23, 2011
In November 2006, Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sponsored a resolution passed by the Pennsylvania Senate that created an Advisory Committee on Wrongful Conviction. Senate Resolution 381 directed that the joint state government committee, which is responsible for performing research for both houses and both parties of the General Assembly, establish the advisory committee.
The Senate resolution provided that the advisory committee on wrongful conviction shall, "Study the underlying causes of wrongful convictions so that the advisory committee may develop a consensus on recommendations intended to reduce the possibility that in the future innocent persons will be wrongfully convicted."
The resolution further directed the committee to, "review cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated, review any other relevant materials, identify the most common causes of wrongful convictions." Finally the committee must "consider potential implementation plans, cost implications, including possible savings, and the impact on the criminal justice system for each potential solution."
Nearly five years have passed without the committee issuing a report. Greenleaf's office has said it will be released next month. Meanwhile, several other states have been leading the charge in implementing means of evaluating possible wrongful convictions.
North Carolina is leading the way in government sponsored post-conviction review of innocence claims. In 2006, North Carolina established the Innocence Inquiry Commission, a state agency that investigates and evaluates post-conviction claims of factual innocence. The commission is made up of eight members selected by the chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court and the chief judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The members include a Superior Court judge, a prosecuting attorney, a defense attorney, a victim advocate, a member of the public and two discretionary members.
The North Carolina commission has received 850 claims, conducted three hearings and issued one exoneration order.
Until recently, innocence claims were pursued by privately funded organizations.
According to USA Today , in Texas, state leaders are awaiting a commission study on the effects of innocence-related laws on eyewitness identification, the videotaping of interrogations and post-conviction DNA testing. In Florida, a commission created to examine the causes of wrongful convictions delivered a report to the state Supreme Court calling for police to follow state-issued guidelines on photo and live suspect lineups. USA Today , citing the Innocence Project, reported that five states in addition to Pennsylvania — California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and Wisconsin — have established commissions to study the causes of wrongful convictions and make recommendations to lawmakers, police and the courts.
The state's advisory committee on wrongful conviction consists of judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, law enforcement officers and victims' advocates. The project is chaired by John T. Rago, a Duquesne University law professor and director of the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law, who, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , proposed the study to Greenleaf.
The advisory committee has yet to issue its findings. Originally it was reported that a final advisory committee report would be issued in late 2008. In June of 2009, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that, "The Senate-commissioned Committee on Wrongful Convictions is due to release a report by summer's end that could recommend changes in state law."
Summer came and went in 2009 without a report. At least one of the advisory committee's four subcommittees provided some public feedback. The science subcommittee made four recommendations. First, the science subcommittee called for a regulation mandating the preservation of biological evidence, as well as the creation of a forensic advisory board and implementation guidelines for lab accreditation and training.
In July 2010, the Innocence Project posted on its website: "With the upcoming release of a final report from Pennsylvania's Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions, the Pennsylvania Innocence Project is hopeful that Pennsylvania will join the growing number of states that require law enforcement officials to videotape all confessions from start to finish."
Obviously, the "upcoming release" of the report has not happened. However, videotaping confessions is indeed an issue that the advisory committee is considering. While a number of law enforcement agencies across the country have adopted some form of videotaping, Pennsylvania has not mandated videotaping of confessions by law enforcement agencies.
The purpose of videotaping is to ensure that confessions are free and voluntary and that the accused is not laboring under some defect that would render her confession involuntary. The subcommittee charged with evaluating this issue has sought public comment and the committee members are apparently hung up on when the videotaping should begin. Some members suggest that the videotape should not start rolling until the accused has been provided her Miranda rights, while others believe that the videotape should roll as soon as the interview begins.
Judging by the work in other states, the advisory committee should also address the use of informants and eyewitness misidentification. Professor Alexandra Natapoff recently wrote for Reason Magazine that a 2004 study by researchers at Northwestern University Law School found that "more than 45 percent of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases were due to false informant testimony; making snitches 'the leading cause of wrongful convictions in U.S. capital cases.'"
According to the Innocence Project, eyewitness misidentification testimony was a factor in 75 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of all wrongful convictions.
Greenleaf's office said that the report is now scheduled for release on Sept. 16 to correspond with the fall legislative session. Only time will tell, as more than four years have passed since the advisory committee on wrongful convictions was established. At the time there were 198 DNA exonerations nationwide and nine in Pennsylvania. Today, according to the Innocence Project there are 273 DNA exonerations nationwide and 11 in Pennsylvania.
Visit Matt Mangino's Blog
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly
August 23, 2011
In November 2006, Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sponsored a resolution passed by the Pennsylvania Senate that created an Advisory Committee on Wrongful Conviction. Senate Resolution 381 directed that the joint state government committee, which is responsible for performing research for both houses and both parties of the General Assembly, establish the advisory committee.
The Senate resolution provided that the advisory committee on wrongful conviction shall, "Study the underlying causes of wrongful convictions so that the advisory committee may develop a consensus on recommendations intended to reduce the possibility that in the future innocent persons will be wrongfully convicted."
The resolution further directed the committee to, "review cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated, review any other relevant materials, identify the most common causes of wrongful convictions." Finally the committee must "consider potential implementation plans, cost implications, including possible savings, and the impact on the criminal justice system for each potential solution."
Nearly five years have passed without the committee issuing a report. Greenleaf's office has said it will be released next month. Meanwhile, several other states have been leading the charge in implementing means of evaluating possible wrongful convictions.
North Carolina is leading the way in government sponsored post-conviction review of innocence claims. In 2006, North Carolina established the Innocence Inquiry Commission, a state agency that investigates and evaluates post-conviction claims of factual innocence. The commission is made up of eight members selected by the chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court and the chief judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The members include a Superior Court judge, a prosecuting attorney, a defense attorney, a victim advocate, a member of the public and two discretionary members.
The North Carolina commission has received 850 claims, conducted three hearings and issued one exoneration order.
Until recently, innocence claims were pursued by privately funded organizations.
According to USA Today , in Texas, state leaders are awaiting a commission study on the effects of innocence-related laws on eyewitness identification, the videotaping of interrogations and post-conviction DNA testing. In Florida, a commission created to examine the causes of wrongful convictions delivered a report to the state Supreme Court calling for police to follow state-issued guidelines on photo and live suspect lineups. USA Today , citing the Innocence Project, reported that five states in addition to Pennsylvania — California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and Wisconsin — have established commissions to study the causes of wrongful convictions and make recommendations to lawmakers, police and the courts.
The state's advisory committee on wrongful conviction consists of judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, law enforcement officers and victims' advocates. The project is chaired by John T. Rago, a Duquesne University law professor and director of the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law, who, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , proposed the study to Greenleaf.
The advisory committee has yet to issue its findings. Originally it was reported that a final advisory committee report would be issued in late 2008. In June of 2009, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that, "The Senate-commissioned Committee on Wrongful Convictions is due to release a report by summer's end that could recommend changes in state law."
Summer came and went in 2009 without a report. At least one of the advisory committee's four subcommittees provided some public feedback. The science subcommittee made four recommendations. First, the science subcommittee called for a regulation mandating the preservation of biological evidence, as well as the creation of a forensic advisory board and implementation guidelines for lab accreditation and training.
In July 2010, the Innocence Project posted on its website: "With the upcoming release of a final report from Pennsylvania's Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions, the Pennsylvania Innocence Project is hopeful that Pennsylvania will join the growing number of states that require law enforcement officials to videotape all confessions from start to finish."
Obviously, the "upcoming release" of the report has not happened. However, videotaping confessions is indeed an issue that the advisory committee is considering. While a number of law enforcement agencies across the country have adopted some form of videotaping, Pennsylvania has not mandated videotaping of confessions by law enforcement agencies.
The purpose of videotaping is to ensure that confessions are free and voluntary and that the accused is not laboring under some defect that would render her confession involuntary. The subcommittee charged with evaluating this issue has sought public comment and the committee members are apparently hung up on when the videotaping should begin. Some members suggest that the videotape should not start rolling until the accused has been provided her Miranda rights, while others believe that the videotape should roll as soon as the interview begins.
Judging by the work in other states, the advisory committee should also address the use of informants and eyewitness misidentification. Professor Alexandra Natapoff recently wrote for Reason Magazine that a 2004 study by researchers at Northwestern University Law School found that "more than 45 percent of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases were due to false informant testimony; making snitches 'the leading cause of wrongful convictions in U.S. capital cases.'"
According to the Innocence Project, eyewitness misidentification testimony was a factor in 75 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of all wrongful convictions.
Greenleaf's office said that the report is now scheduled for release on Sept. 16 to correspond with the fall legislative session. Only time will tell, as more than four years have passed since the advisory committee on wrongful convictions was established. At the time there were 198 DNA exonerations nationwide and nine in Pennsylvania. Today, according to the Innocence Project there are 273 DNA exonerations nationwide and 11 in Pennsylvania.
Visit Matt Mangino's Blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)