Kentucky State Seal Office of the Fayette Commonwealth's Attorney

Death Penalty Debate

Gallup Poll Reports:  74% Of Americans Support The Death Penalty - This Is In Spite Of The Steady Anti-Death Penalty Drumbeat Of The Main Stream Media
Gallup's latest update on the death penalty shows a continued high level of public support for the death penalty for those convicted of murder.  Americans say the death penalty is not imposed enough rather than imposed too often.  Support for the death penalty is high despite the belief of most Americans that innocent people have been put to death in the past five years, although most consider this a rare occurrence.

The poll, conducted May 5-7, finds 74% of Americans in favor of and 24% opposed to the "death penalty for a person convicted of murder."  Gallup has asked this basic death-penalty-support question since the 1930's.  Support has been above 70% over the last two years, after having been in the mid-to-high 60% range in 2000-2001.  The current number is the highest support level Gallup has obtained on this measure since May 1995 when 77% supported the death penalty.  The highest support level was 80% in 1994, and the lowest was 42% in 1966.

In the last couple of years, there has been a growing belief that the death penalty is applied fairly in this country, despite news reports that some individuals were incorrectly given death sentences.  60% now say the death penalty is applied fairly, while 37% disagree.  In 2000, 51% said it was applied fairly, and 41% said it was not.  During that year, Illinois became the first state to institute a moratorium on the death penalty, and the use of the death penalty in Texas under then-Governor George W. Bush was a major issue in the 2000 presidential election campaign.

Source:  The Gallup Organization, May 19, 2003

Illinois Governor George Ryan Appears To Be Desperately Looking For Approval From Anyone These Last Days Of His Scandal-Plagued Term

Gov. George Ryan
Apparently, for a pat on the back, Illinois Governor George Ryan has turned to the only people left - death penalty opponents.  In the process, he has chosen to shaft the surviving victims of these condemned killers.  Atta-boy, George, what a legacy!
Other Death Penalty News:
Missouri - William R. Jones
This killer was executed for killing a man he met at a Kansas City park frequented by gay men.  Prosecutors claimed that Jones plotted the killing after dating the victim after deciding that he wanted the victim's car.  Jones shot the victim five times before dumping the body.
Texas - William Wesley Chappell
This killer was executed by lethal injection for multiple murder in 1988.  Chappell broke into a home in Forth Worth, Texas in May of 1988 and began shooting people with a silencer-equipped gun as they slept.  A woman, age 27, her mother, age 50, and stepfather, age 70, were killed.  Police believed that Chappell missed his intended target, an ex-girlfriend who moved out of her parents home because she feared for her safety.
Texas - Craig Ogan
This killer was executed by lethal injection for the 1989 murder of a Houston police officer.

New York Jury Says Wendy's Restaurant Murderer Of 5 Innocent Employees Should Die by Lethal Injection
New York making good use of its recently enacted death penalty.

The man behind the robbery and massacre at a Wendy's Restaurant in New York was sentenced to death by a jury recently.  John Taylor, 38, and an accomplice herded seven employees of the Wendy's Restaurant into a freezer and murdered five of them.  Prosecutors proved that Taylor plotted the attack and directed his mentally retarded accomplice.

The sentence was handed down more than two years after the murders.  Taylor will be executed by lethal injection.

Kevin Stanford - Condemned Robber, Rapist, Sodomizer and Murderer - Loses Last Appeal

Appeal of death sentence took more than 20 years, now he faces execution, unless commuted by Gov. Patton.
Kevin Stanford

Kevin Stanford
(photo courtesy of http://web.chi.es/isidro/
humanismo/index.htm)

Kevin Stanford raped, sodomized and robbed 20-year-old Baerbel Poore, then murdered her by shooting her in the face, then in the back of the head.  This innocent young mother worked as a gas station attendant so she could support her infant child.
Baerbel Poore

Baerbel Poore

The U. S. Supreme Court refused to consider the last appeal of condemned killer Kevin Stanford.  Now 39, Stanford was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery, sodomy and murder of 20-year-old Baerbel Poore, 20, who worked at a Checker Gas Station in Jefferson County, Kentucky.  Stanford now faces execution.

Poore's sister, Mona Mills, said the decision by the Supreme Court "was the best news I have had in 20 years."  In response to a question about the age of killer Stanford at the time he viciously took the life of the young mother of an 11-month-old baby, Mills said, "When you did what he did, that is not the act of a child."

Kentucky's Governor Paul Patton has been asked by the public defender to show mercy to Stanford and commute his sentence.  They don't want Stanford treated the same way he treated Baerbel Poore.

Public Defender Asks Governor Paul Patton 
To Give Vicious Killer A Free Pass Off Death Row!
Clemency request already made to Governor by Public Defender's Office.
Will Patton ignore the jury, crime victims, prosecutors and police?
Governor Paul Patton

Governor Paul Patton

Attorney General Ben Chandler will soon ask Governor Paul Patton to sign a death warrant ordering Kevin Stanford's execution.  The Public Defender's Office has already asked the Governor to commute Stanford's death sentence.

Patton's spokesman, Dennis Fleming, has said previously that the Governor is philosophically opposed to the application of the death penalty for juveniles.

Death Penalty Clemency Hearings Backfire On Death Penalty Opponents And Their Leader, Illinois Governor George Ryan
Governor George Ryan, Illinois

Governor George Ryan, Illinois
Families of murder victims finally get their turn to describe the horror and brutality of the murder of their loved ones and newspapers hate it.

The hearings have become story after story of the bloody horror of senseless and brutal murders by death row inmates. The pain and passion of the families of the victims is so intense and overwhelming that Illinois Governor George Ryan himself has become the target of bitter attacks by the relatives of the murder victims.

So overwhelming is the brutality of the murders and intensity of the suffering and pain of the victims that even Chicago’s two major newspapers have urged Governor Ryan to halt the clemency hearings.

"Halt the anguish, Gov. Ryan," implored the Chicago Tribune. "Ryan’s hearings cruel and unusual," headlined the Chicago Sun-Times.

These liberal, anti-punishment newspapers who are so quick to condemn the death penalty and the court system apparently either can’t stand or are afraid of the real truth about what these condemned killers did to put themselves on death row. The juries knew and now the public is finding out, and the newspapers don’t like it.

The public heard the often painful accounts of the brutal murders committed by these condemned killers. For example, they heard about:

  • A couple who shot and killed a woman, cut her nearly full-term baby from her womb, and killed two of her other children;
  • Two brothers who beat a sleeping couple to death with baseball bats;
  • A father who tortured his mute, severely retarded stepdaughter for years until she died;
  • A man who killed a couple after telling them to have their last kiss;
  • A man who took eight women to remote locations and stripped, bound and murdered them.

"I can’t imagine the public has heard such a parade of horrors combined into such a short time period in American history," said John Gorman, a spokesman for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Defense attorneys had hoped the hearings would focus on such problems as police brutality and unreliable jailhouse snitches. But it was clear almost from the beginning that the emphasis would be on the crimes themselves and the families they devastated.

Family members have transformed the hearing rooms into photo galleries of the dead. They have pointed to the infants in the audience who would never know their grandfathers, the sons and daughters who grew up without parents.

"You could not sit in that room without feeling human and without feeling how vulnerable it is to be human," said Arvin Boddie, a board member who was removed after criticizing the hearings and defense attorneys.

Source:  Associated Press

Dick Devine's Letter To The Editor:  Cook County State's Attorney Tells Gov. Ryan To Quit Blaming Victims
Give him Hell, Dick! 

Chicago Sun-Times
Letters
Richard Devine, Cook County, Illinois State's Attorney

Richard Devine, Cook County, Illinois State's Attorney
Gov. Ryan shouldn't blame victims

October 28, 2002

Gov. Ryan blamed prosecutors last week for creating the "drama" of the victims testifying in these clemency hearings and said that prosecutors could call them off, not him.

This is just another example of the governor's disregard for our state's criminal justice system. It is unconscionable for the governor who has invited everyone on Death Row to file these petitions, and who indicated he might grant blanket clemency, to blame prosecutors for demanding hearings and giving these families a chance to speak out. The victims' families would have been justifiably outraged if they were denied this chance. They have demanded the right to speak after learning of the governor's threat.

In one case, a mother who needed an oxygen tank at the hearing insisted on testifying despite our protestations that other family members could speak.

Prosecutors did not file these petitions; the defense bar did in unprecedented numbers after getting a wink and a nod from the governor. Family members have historically attended these hearings to oppose clemency. Maybe the governor forgets the clemency hearings held for Richard Speck and the anguish and the outrage voiced by the parents of the eight murdered student nurses.

These victims' families have had to sit mute during trials and countless post-conviction hearings. This is their chance to be heard, and they do not want to be denied that right. They want to tell the governor what they think of his blanket approach to justice.

We requested the hearings because the defendants did not. For the first time in modern history, the defendants did not request a hearing, and one wonders why. Perhaps they hoped that prosecutors and the families would be satisfied to have the cases considered quietly and without fuss and then have their decisions made on a wholesale basis. If they did, they were wrong.

The victims' families are the most forgotten people in the criminal justice system and yet have the most to lose in these hearings. Perhaps the governor is unaware of the constitutional right of the victims to be heard.

Clemency hearings are supposed to be held when all other appeals have been exhausted. But after getting the high sign from the governor, prisoners' lawyers have filed these petitions when there are still many appeals still pending or still possible. These families should only have to go through this once, but if the governor does not pardon these killers, these families will undoubtedly have to go through this again when all appeals fail.

Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert has called these hearings obscene. The only thing more obscene would be for Gov. Ryan to follow through on his continuing threat to grant blanket commutation to these 160 convicted killers, or to create categories that give the appearance of a reason but are little more than cover for wholesale clemency. If the governor makes his decisions based on the merits of each case, there will be very few grants of clemency issued.

Dick Devine, Cook County state's attorney

Source:  Chicago Sun-Times, October 28, 2002.

Louisville Courier-Journal Is Taken To Task For Errors & Faulty Liberal Logic In Its Latest Anti-Death Penalty Editorial
Larry Osborne was originally convicted and sentenced to death, largely on the sworn testimony of a witness who died prior to the first trial. The case was overturned because Osborne could not cross-examine the dead witness. Because the prosecution could not use that evidence in the second trial, Osborne was found not guilty.

The editorial writers for the Courier-Journal concluded, therefore, that Osborne was innocent. The C-J seem to conclude that legal innocence is the same as actual innocence. WRONG!

Dudley Sharp, Resource Director for Justice For All, in Houston, Texas, points out the faulty logic of the C-J latest anti-death penalty editorial and all of their errors in their latest rant.

The Courier-Journal made some significant errors within its newest rant against capital punishment ("Justice without death," Aug. 7).

Contrary to The C-J’s incorrect finding, the acquittal of Larry Osborne goes to the safety of the death penalty and to the extent the justice system goes in protecting defendants and inmates. Osborne was originally convicted and sentenced to death, largely on the sworn testimony of a witness who died prior to that first trial. That case was overturned because Osborne, obviously, could not cross-examine that witness.

It is very safe to say that Osborne’s acquittal in the second trial was due to the lack of that same evidence. This in no way indicates that Osborne was actually innocent. His second trial found him not guilty because the state could not prove his doubt. Yet, the C-J seems to conclude that legal innocence and actual innocence are the same. They are not.

The law recognizes these obvious distinctions; so does popular culture. Significant portions of the population believe that O.J. Simpson is actually guilty of murdering two people, even though he was found not guilty at his criminal trial. The C-J incorrectly implies that 101 actual innocents have previously been freed from death rows in the United States. That number is simply a fraud presented by death penalty opponents and repeated, without challenge, by many in the media, including the C-J.

Twenty-three of those 101 "innocents" are from Florida. Florida officially reviewed those claims through their Florida Commission on Capital Cases, which found that four of those 23 cases may have a credible claim of innocence. If those findings are consistent throughout the country, that would mean that 17 of those 101 cases may have a credible claim of innocence. That is 0.2 percent of the 7,300 sentenced to death since 1973. None of the 17 (or the 101) was executed.

It is unlikely that there is a more accurate criminal justice sanction in the world. And a complete review finds that the risk to the innocent will be much higher if we fail to execute known murderers.

Even Death Penalty Opponents Think This Latest U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Is Weird

"The Supremes ignored the Constitution...," said death penalty opponent Prof. Richard W. Garrett of Notre Dame Law School.  "I oppose the death penalty. . . but accept that the death penalty can serve as a deterrent; and that retribution is the justification and proper purpose of punishment. . . . but I can only shake my head at the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the execution of persons with severe developmental disabilities," he added.

"Seldom has an opinion of this Court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members."
Justice Antonin Scalia.

The slim majority of the U.S. Supreme Court simply ignored our constitution and law and did what they wanted. Is this the beginning of the end of the rule of law? We always thought we could count on the Supreme Court to uphold our Constitution. Not if they keep up these antics.

Of Course The Death Penalty Deters!
Some question whether the death penalty is a deterrent.

How can it not be !

Almost no one wants to die. Guilty murderers do everything to avoid being executed. They appeal their cases endlessly, accept plea bargains for life in prison. 

Is there any reason to believe the death penalty deters murders?

Just look at the facts.

Before 1963, most states had capital punishment and used it. Executions tracked the murder rate fairly consistently. By the late 1950's, murders were declining and executions were rare, but focused public attention on particularly heinous murders.

By the early 1960's, however, liberal criminal justice policy-makers began to argue that, because murder rates were so low, the death penalty was no longer needed. Executions ground to a halt until the Supreme Court abolished them altogether in 1972.

Simultaneously, murders skyrocketed. In 1973, they reached their 1933 peak, and hit an all-time high in 1980. Not until executions of these murderers resumed in earnest after 1991, did the murder rates fall rapidly to the 1960's level.

Today almost half of all homicides are committed by strangers to the victim, and most of those are committed during another crime.

These zealots are always ready to accept the word of a killer. "It was just an accident," they say, or "we really didn’t mean to shoot the guy, we were just trying to rob him," and apologists believe them and argue that it is unfair to execute some unfortunate sole for such a "tragic mistake."

Yes, these naive elitists are very good at this type of thinking. Just don’t confuse them with the facts or history.

Source:  Opinion Journal, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, June 21, 2002.

Capital Punishment Saves Lives!
Moratorium on executions? We've been there and done that and it was a deadly disaster. Between 1965 and 1980, there was practically no death penalty in the United States. During that time (1965-80), murders in the United States doubled from 9,960 to 23,040 per year. Obviously, murder becomes more attractive to potential killers when they know that prison is the worst they can face.

Capital Punishment Saves Lives
By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe
DEATH PENALTY abolitionists don't usually mention it, but in promoting a moratorium on executions, they are urging us down a road we have taken before.

In the mid-1960s, as a number of legal challenges to capital punishment began working their way through the courts, executions in the United States came to a halt. From 56 in 1960, the number of killers put to death dropped to seven in 1965, to one in 1966, and to zero in 1967. There it stayed for the next 10 years, until the State of Utah executed Gary Gilmore in 1977. That was the only execution in 1977, and there were only two more during the next three years.

In sum, between 1965 and 1980, there was practically no death penalty in the United States, and for 10 of those 16 years - 1967-76 - there was literally no death penalty: a national moratorium.

What was the effect of making capital punishment unavailable for a decade and a half? Did a moratorium on executions save innocent lives - or cost them?

The data are brutal. Between 1965 and 1980, annual murders in the United States skyrocketed, rising from 9,960 to 23,040. The murder rate - homicides per 100,000 persons - doubled from 5.1 to 10.2.

Was it just a fluke that the steepest increase in murder in US history coincided with the years when the death penalty was not available to punish it? Perhaps. Or perhaps murder becomes more attractive when potential killers know that prison is the worst outcome they can face.

By contrast, common sense suggests that there are at least some people who will not commit murder if they think it might cost them their lives. Sure enough, as executions have become more numerous, murder has declined. ''From 1995 to 2000,'' notes Dudley Sharp of the victims rights group Justice For All, ''executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 - a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966.''

What is true nationally has been observed locally as well. There were 12,652 homicides in New York during the 25 years from 1940 to 1965, when New York regularly executed murderers. By contrast, during the 25 years from 1966 to 1991 there were no executions at all - and murders quadrupled to 51,638.

To be sure, murder rates fell in almost every state in the 1990s. But they fell the most in states that use capital punishment. The most striking protection of innocent life has been in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. In 1991, the Texas murder rate was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 - a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 - a 72 percent decrease.

Obviously, murder and the rate at which it occurs are affected by more than just the presence or absence of the death penalty. But even after taking that caveat into account, it seems irrefutably clear that when murderers are executed, innocent lives are saved. And when executions are stopped, innocent lives are lost.

Death penalty abolitionists (and a few death penalty supporters) claim that a moratorium on executions is warranted because the criminal justice system is ''broken'' and the death penalty is unfairly applied. But if that's true when the punishment is death, how much more so is it true when the punishment isn't death! Death penalty prosecutions typically undergo years of appeals, often attracting intense scrutiny and media attention. So painstaking is the super-due process of capital murder cases that for all the recent hype about innocent prisoners on death row, there is not a single proven case in modern times of an innocent person being executed in the United States.

But the due process in non-death penalty cases is not nearly as scrupulous. Everyone knows that there are innocent people behind bars today. If the legal system's flaws justify a moratorium on capital punishment, a fortiori they justify a moratorium on imprisonment. Those who call for a moratorium on executions should be calling just as vehemently for a moratorium on prison terms. Why don't they?

Because they know how ridiculous it would sound. If there are problems with the system, the system should be fixed, but refusing to punish criminals would succeed only in making society far less safe than it is today.

The same would be true of a moratorium on executions. If due process in capital murder cases can be made even more watertight, by all means let us do so. But not by keeping the worst of our murderers alive until perfection is achieved. We've been down the moratorium road before. We know how that experiment turns out. The results are written in wrenching detail on gravestones across the land.
Source:  The Boston Globe, June 6, 2002.

Maryland Governor Glendening Halts Executions, Accused Of Playing Politics With Death Penalty
Governor refuses to meet with victim's family to explain why he ignored jury's sentence.  His decision thrills death-penalty oppoents; infuriates families of murder victims.
Governor Parris N. Glendening

Parris N. Glendening
Governor of Maryland
Sandra O'Connor, Baltimore County, Maryland State's Attorney, Applies Death Penalty Law Consistently.

Sandra O'Connor

Sandra O'Connor
Sandra O'Connor, Baltimore County States Attorney, has an ironclad policy of seeking the death penalty in every case that qualifies for it under Maryland law, with two exceptions:
  • when the victim's relatives are against a death penalty; or
  • evidence is based solely on a co-defendant's testimony.

"She is intellectually honest.  Any attempt to paint her with racial bias is outrageous," says self-described "liberal democrat" Gary Bernstein.
Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening, who claims to support capital punishment, stopped all executions in Maryland, including convicted killer Wesley Baker, who was scheduled to be executed.

Baker was convicted of First Degree Murder in the robbery and shooting of Jane Tyson in front of her two grandchildren as they all sat in her car outside of a Baltimore Mall in 1991.

Karen Sulewski, a daughter of the victim, is furious that the Governor refuses to meet with her to explain his decision. Sulewski accused Glendening of caving in to political pressure to help Lt. Governor Kennedy-Townsend in her effort to succeed him as Governor of Maryland.

Baltimore Sun Opinion Blasts Maryland Governor's Political Motives In Death Penalty Halt

Timing Of Death Penalty Halt Reveals Governor's True Motive
By Gregory Kane, Baltimore Sun
SO LET'S get this straight: On the evening of June 6, 1991, Wesley Baker walked up to Jane Frances Tyson as she sat in her car. Tyson had just finished shopping in the Westview Mall. Her grandchildren, a 6-year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl, were with her in the car.

Baker demanded Tyson’s purse and then in full view of the little ones, shot her in the head. Baker grabbed Tyson’s purse and ran to a nearby Chevy Blazer driven by his co-hort, Gregory Lawrence.

Baltimore County police caught the pair a short time later. Lawrence was convicted of felony murder and a handgun violation and sentenced to life in prison, plus 20 years. Baker received a death sentence.

It is as cold-hearted and heinous a crime as has ever been committed in this neck of the woods. But to hear death penalty opponents and other bleeding hearts tell it, Baker - the killer, not Jane Tyson, is the victim. They somehow think that the killer, not Jane Tyson’s surviving relatives, deserve our sympathy.
Source:  Baltimore Sun, May 15, 2002.

Well, the cold-blooded killer, Wesley Baker won’t get the sympathy of the voting public, but he sure got the sympathy of Maryland’s Governor. No wonder the public has such a low opinion of elected officials.

Governor Glendening's Maryland Is "Criminal-Friendly," According To Washington Times
Colorado woman raped and murdered by Maryland criminal who was released early from Maryland prison.  Maryland Governor Glendening apologizes to Colorado Governor.  Maryland pays $700,000 to the woman's family.

The C/J Eight (Louisville Courier-Journal Editorial Writers) Claim Cold-Blooded Killer "Too Young To Die"
 They conveniently ignore the fact that he was not too young to murder a defenseless 63-year-old man, however.

The C-J Eight (the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board) are outraged that Napoleon Beazley was executed in Texas recently for the brutal murder of John Luttig eight years ago.

The opinion of The C-J Eight, titled "Too young to die," reveals their anguish when Beazley was executed.  Of course, they show no concerns for 63-year-old John Luttig who Beazley shot twice in the head with a .45-caliber gun, and whose pockets were rifled for keys to his car which he stole for a one-block joyride.

Nope, the editorial tears of The C-J Eight are reserved for the killer, who was 3 months short of his 18th birthday.

The Boston Globe

Executing 'Children,' And Other Death-Penalty Myths

By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe
THERE WERE tears and sighs aplenty when Napoleon Beazley was put to death last week, eight years after he pumped two .45-caliber bullets into the head of a defenseless 63-year-old, rifled the dead man's pockets to get his keys, and then stole his car for a one-block joyride. But the tears and sighs weren't for Beazley's victim, John Luttig, or for Luttig's widow, who was nearly killed herself, or for their children and grandchildren, whose lives sustained a wound that night that will never fully heal.

The tears and sighs were for Beazley.  And why?  Because at the time he committed what even he called a "heinous" and "senseless" murder, his 18th birthday was still three months off.  That was enough to send the anti-death penalty spin machine into overdrive.

"I am astounded," wrote Bishop Desmond Tutu, "that Texas [and other states] take *children* from their families and execute them."

"Texas must recognize," thundered Sue Gunawardena-Vaught of Amnesty International, "that the brutal practice of executing *children* is in complete and utter defiance of international law."

"Of those nations executing *children*," an aghast Jeannine Scott wrote in The New Abolitionist, "the United States is far in the lead."

It's hard to say which is more offensive - the pretence that giving a lethal injection to a 25-year-old convicted murderer amounts to "executing children," or the spectacle of people who never shed a tear for the innocent John Luttig weeping so noisily for his killer.

In any case, the age issue is a red herring.  No state allows the death sentence for anyone younger than 16, and no one younger than 23 has been executed in modern times.  Anti-execution activists seized on Beazley's age for the same reason they seized on Karla Faye Tucker's death row conversion to Christianity and Ricky McGinn's last-minute plea for DNA testing:  They'll seize on any excuse to keep a murderer alive, no matter how lame the excuse or how obvious the murderer's guilt.

That is their right, of course -- in a way, it is even part of the super-due process the US criminal justice system affords capital defendants -- but it would be n ice if they sometimes acknowledge the truth:  they aren't opposed to unjust or tainted executions, they are opposed to all executions, period.  The Beazley brouhaha was simply one more skirmish in their ongoing (and very well-funded) campaign to wipe out capital punishment.

So is their call for a death-penalty moratorium.

Opponents of capital punishment loudly insist that death sentences are meted out unfairly and incompetently, that the criminal justice system is broken, and -- worst of all -- that scores of innocent defendants are being sent to death row.  These are grotesque exaggerations, based mostly on a handful of anecdotes (didja hear the one about the lawyer who fell asleep?) or highly tortured statistics, like the phony claim that there is a 68 percent error rate in capital cases.

The truth is that capital punishment in America is the most accurate and carefully administered criminal sanction in the world, and the public has good reason to support it.  The latest Gallup poll shows that 72 percent of Americans favor the death penalty for murderers, while only 25 percent oppose it.  Indeed, nearly half of the public (47 percent) says that the death penalty isn't imposed often enough, more than double the 22 percent who think it is imposed too often.

Hence the call for a moratorium.  Americans are being urged not to abolish executions but merely to suspend them long enough to identify and fix any problems.  "Whether you support or oppose capital punishment," goes the ACLU's pitch, "we need a moratorium on executions to give us time to figure out why the system is not working."

It's a clever appeal, geared to Americans' sense of fair play, and there are signs that it is having an impact.  Illinois and Maryland have adopted moratoriums.  The idea is under construction in other states.  Writing in The New Republic, Peter Beinart suggests that endorsing a national death-penalty moratorium could be a winning issue for a Democratic presidential candidate.  With a largely anti-death penalty media cheering in the background, perhaps it could.

To be sure, some moratorium proponents are in fact death penalty supporters who sincerely believe that there are correctable problems with the way it is currently administered.  That was the thinking behind the moratorium in Illinois, a state where judges and policemen have been convicted of corruption and where a number of capital defendants were wrongly convicted.

But most of those calling for a national moratorium see it as a prelude to ending executions for good.  As usual, they are not being straightforward about their motives -- or about what we could expect if they get their way.
Source:  The Boston Globe, June 2, 2002.

Gallup Poll Shows Support For Death Penalty Higher Than In Recent Years

A recent Gallup poll shows Americans tend to believe the death penalty is applied fairly in the United States.  72% favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while only 25% are opposed.  Support has risen by almost 5%.

A poll conducted by The Gallup Organization during May, 2002 shows that support for the death penalty is rising.  Some of the significant findings include:

1. Americans tend to believe that the death-penalty is applied fairly in the United States.
2. When asked about the frequency with which the death-penalty is imposed:
447% not imposed enough (up from 38%)
24% the right amount of times.
22% too often
3. When asked if they favor the death-penalty for persons convicted of murder:
72% favor
25% oppose
4. When asked if the death penalty is morally acceptable:
67% say it is
28% say it is not
5. When asked if they supported using the death-penalty for women:
68% say yes
29% say no

The Death Penalty Abolitionists Seek State Funds For Study In Hopes Of Repealing Kentucky's Death Penalty Law

Rep. Rob Wilkie

Rep. Rob Wilkie

According to the April 26, 2002 edition of the Lexington Herald-Leader, Rep. Rob Wilkie, D-Franklin, and other death penalty abolitionists will seek funds from the Legislative Research Commission to help finance a study which they hope will lead to the repeal of Kentucky’s death penalty law.

On April 22, 2002 The Lexington Herald-Leader reported:

"Frankfort - Foes of capital punishment can’t seem to win in this town, but they hope a $100,000 study of the death penalty will change some people’s minds."

The abolitionists hope to receive $25,000 in state funds to match $75,000 in grant funds for the study, which they say will determine whether death sentences are fairly given and carried out in Kentucky. Rep. Rob Wilkie said he hopes to tap the Legislative Research Commission, which regularly funds studies.

Source: Article by John Cheves in the April 26, 2002 edition of the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The Public's Support For Capital Punishment Remains Strong
Even after non-stop media screeching against the death penalty by liberal newspapers like New York Times and Washington Post, a recent poll showed support for capital punishment is at 82%.

Josh Marquis
Oregon prosecutor Josh Marquis is a frequent spokesperson for the prosecution perspective on  death penalty issues.
The American public possesses a deep-seated sense of right and wrong. It seems that no matter how hard the liberal media and the anti-death penalty elitists try, average citizens continue to believe that those who commit the most heinous murders should face the possibility of the most serious punishment.

America’s prosecutors feel that people who violate our laws should suffer the consequences of those acts, and they will continue to do all they can to see that law-breakers are held responsible for their criminal acts. The safety of the public is job # 1 for prosecutors.

That is what the public expects and wants.

Kentucky Supreme Court Restores Death Sentence
Excerpted from a Louisville Courier-Journal article by Joseph Gerth, dated 3/22/02.
Supreme Court Justice Donald Wintersheimer

Supreme Court Justice Donald Wintersheimer
Judge Mary Noble

Judge Mary Noble
A Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion, written by Justice Donald Wintersheimer, reverses a decision by Fayette Circuit Judge Mary Noble to give a condemned murderer a third trial for a 1983 murder.

The Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated the murder convictions and death sentence of Eugene Frank Tamme in the slayings of two men in a Washington County marijuana field in 1983.

Eugene Frank Tamme
Eugene Frank Tamme

Reason For Death Sentence:
This killer had an accomplice bring the two victims to a field where marijuana was being grown in Washington County in 1983.  After the men arrived at the field, Tamme surprised the men and shot them both, killing them.  Tamme then buried the two men in a ravine.  He later dug up the bodies, burned them, and then dumped their ashes and bones in a creek.

Tamme was first convicted of killing Harold Southerland and Neal Maddox in 1985, but that finding was set aside by the state Supreme Court.  He was convicted again in 1994.

Fayette Circuit Judge Mary C. Noble ruled in August, 2000 that Tamme's second conviction should be overturned, in part because of new evidence that defense lawyers said cast doubt on Tamme's guilt.

On appeal, the lawyers argued that Tamme's trial lawyers weren't allowed to present evidence that two prosecution witnesses were involved in the drug trade with Tamme and that they had shot the victims during a drug deal gone bad.

Noble sided with Tamme, but the state Supreme Court disagreed with her.

In two separate opinions, all seven justices said Tamme's conviction should stand.

Writing the majority decision, Justice Donald Wintersheimer said that Noble was not supported by case law when she ruled that the new evidence was sufficient to warrant a new trial.

Noble ruled that the new evidence could "reasonably" result in a different verdict, but Wintersheimer noted that Kentucky appellate courts have held that judges could overturn convictions based on new evidence only if there is "reasonable certainty" that a jury would reach a different decision.

"Such is a more liberal standard at variance with the requirements of this court," he said.

Wintersheimer also said that Noble misapplied the law when she ruled that Tamme didn't get effective legal assistance and that he was barred from presenting a defense.  Both arguments stemmed from Tamme not being allowed to present evidence of the drug trade.

The Supreme Court overturned Tamme's first conviction after his lawyers agrued that allowing the jury to hear evidence of his involvement in drugs prejudiced jurors against him.

Following the second trial, the lawyers argued just the opposite.

"The argument that the original decision of this Court was intended to limit any inference to drug activities only to the prosecution, but permit the defense to impeach the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses with evidence of involvement in the drug operation is absurd," Wintersheimer wrote.

The fact that Tamme's lawyers didn't push to introduce the drug evidence doesn't warrant a new trial, either, the court ruled.  Wintersheimer quoted a decision from a 2000 case when he said a verdict should be overturned for ineffective legal help only when "counsel was so thoroughly ineffective that defeat was snatched from the hands of probable victory."

Executions Deter Murders, According To Two Major University Studies
"The execution of each offender seems to save, on the average, the lives of 18 potential victims," according to Emory University researchers.
Executions called deterrent
New Studies dispute earlier data
By Frank Green
Times-dispatch staff writer
It's long been held by death penalty opponents and accepted by most criminologists - and some capital punishment proponents - that executions do not deter murders.

But detailed studies released in the past year by economists at two universities concluded that the penalty has saved lives in jurisdictions that have it. The two recent studies contradict numbers that show no deterrent effects.

"Our results suggest that the legal change allowing executions beginning in 1977 has been met with significant reductions in homicides," write three researchers at Emory University in Atlanta.

The U.S. Supreme Court stopped executions in 1972 but allowed their resumption in 1967. Of the states with the death penalty, Virginia ranks second in the number of executions during that time. As of the end of last year, Texas led with 255 executions, while Virginia had put 83 killers to death.

According to Emory researchers, "The execution of each offender seems to save, on average, lives of 18 potential victims. "The estimate, they say, has a margin of error of plus or minus ten."

A separate study by H. Naci Mocan, economics department chairman at the University of Denver, and graduate student R. Kaj Gittings came to much the same conclusion. Mocan concluded that each additional execution means five or six fewer homicides.

Mocan said that economists are looking at crime because "criminal activity is really not different from other economic decision." A potential criminal looks at the expected costs and benefits and makes her decision and behaves accordingly.

"As a result, economics and economists have something to contribute to this analysis." he explained.

The University of Colorado study looked at the 6,143 death sentences imposed between. The Emory study examined data covering 3,054 counties with and without the death penalty through 1992 to scrutinize the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

Mocan proclaimed, "A common argument against the deterrent effect is that states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states without it."

But he said "such a simple correlation" does not mean there is a cause-and effect relation between homicide rates and the death penalty. The higher homicide rate could have led to the enactment of the death penalty in those states, he said.

The Colorado study found that the presence of capital punishment in a state meant 65 fewer homicides in the state. From 1977 to 1997, after taking into account numerous factors, Mocan stated the major finding was that "for every three pardons in a state, there were one to 1 and a half additional homicides."

Both studies conclude by cautioning that their results must be balanced by unfairness and discrimination in the justice system. "Given these concerns, a stand for or against capital punishment [based solely on the study] should not be taken with confidence," Mocan writes.

Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, says "the approach taken by these studies differs from those taken by many other researchers who have found no deterrent effects."

"I think deterrence is almost an impossible thing to measure. It's trying to measure why people commit murder or other crimes. There are so many reasons, it's hard to isolate out "where do you determine that it's the death penalty that's motivating people not to commit crime?"
Source:  The Washington Times, February 28, 2002, excerpted.

Thomas Sowell Tells It Like It Is:  The IQ Exemption For Killers
Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

The never-ending battle of the left to keep people from being held responsible for their acts is now in the U. S. Supreme Court.  The justices are being urged to exempt murderers from the death penalty if they score below some number on the IQ scale.  Psychology and psychiatry are not sciences, though some courts pretend they are.  Click here for story.

"Lexington Herald-Leader Supports The Death Penalty," Says Editor Amanda Bennett
The daily newspaper's support of Kentucky's death penalty proclaimed during WVLK radio program "Front-Page," hosted by Sue Wylie.
Amanda Bennett, Editor, Lexington Herald-Leader

Amanda Bennett
Editor, Lexington Herald-Leader

The Lexington Herald-Leader supports the death penalty. That's what Amanda Bennett, the newly appointed Editor of Lexington's daily newspaper, said while she was a guest on the February 5, 2002 Edition of WVLK radio program "Front-Page," hosted by Sue Wylie.

Ms. Bennett's proclamation of support for the death penalty echoes the same position stated by her predecessor, Pam Luecke, who left the Lexington Herald-Leader to become a professor of journalism at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia.  Before Luecke left the newspaper, she also stated, in an interview with Wood Simpson which appeared in the Chevy Chaser Magazine, that the Herald-Leader supported the death penalty.

BUSTED!  "The Great 'Browser-Cookie' Conspiracy" Uncovered

Death Penalty Opponents Conspire
To Rig Web-Poll Results!

Death penalty opponents voted overwhelmingly to abolish the death penalty for 16 and 17 year old killers who commit the most heinous murders.  (621 against DP for juveniles - 120 for).  However, thanks to good "cyber" citizens, we now know how they did it!

Last week’s web question was:

"Should 16 and 17 year old juveniles who commit the most heinous murders be eligible for the death penalty?"

Normally our web poll attracts between 100 - 200 Web-Voters. However, recently several hundred votes were cast in just one night. The next day we received several emails from good cyber-citizens from around the United States, reporting dirty tricks in last week’s web poll.

One email read:

"Just thought you might like to know that your poll results are being skewed by anti-death penalty activists who are suggesting on their mailing list that everyone turn off their ‘cookies’ so they can vote multiple times." from C.

That good cyber-citizen forwarded the following emails which confirmed "the great browser-cookie conspiracy:"

"There is an easy way of beating most online polls on the death penalty. Most polls permit you to vote only once and they do this by depositing a ‘cookie’ into your browser that basically tells their website that you voted in the poll."

"You can beat this and vote as many times as you want if you turn the cookies off in your browser. Here’s how to turn off your browser’s ‘cookies.’ " from K.

"INSTRUCTIONS TO DISABLE ‘COOKIES’." 
(Specific instructions followed).

After the secret instructions on how to "vote as many times as you want," were published by the anti-D/P bunch, the following emails were sent to other anti-death penalty conspirators throughout the United States:

Email #1

"The current tabulation is 65% YES . . . . . I hate these things, but at the moment, why the hell not vote? Let’s turn it around." From A

Email #2

"Will everyone now revisit www.lexingtonprosecutor.com and use this procedure to vote against the death penalty for juvenile offenders in Larson’s pole (sic.)?? Please!" From E.

Email #3

"Please vote at this site (lexingtonprosecutor.com), and as Karl suggested, if you turn your cookies off, you will be able to vote more than once."

Email #4

"Ray Larson, Commonwealth’s Attorney for Fayette County and champion of the death penalty, maintains a web site loaded with pro-dp stuff. He has a poll running there on the juvenile issue. If we all cast a vote, maybe that would get his attention." From Patrick Delahanty

Email #5

"Folks: So far, about 190 people or so have voted and our side is winning with 75% of the vote! But the pro-DPs will probably learn of this poll soon enough, so please forward this to all of your listservs."

"Together, as a movement, we have connections to labor, feminists, the gay and lesbian community, peace activists and so, so much more. Let’s WIN THIS THING! ! ! !"

It was just two months ago that the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Catholic Priest, and head of the Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Patrick Delahanty admitted he had done the very same thing earlier in an effort to rig the lexingtonprosecutor.com voter poll results by voting numerous times to try to skew the results.

A Clear Voice From The Hollywood Wilderness

John Malkovich

John Malkovich

Independent thinking John Malkovich recently gave the death penalty opponent, Chicago Tribune the benefit of his thoughts about our criminal justice system.

"America’s left wing wants criminals coddled, and no one wants anyone punished," he said. "I would have no problem pushing the switch while having dinner."

He further tweaked the anti-death penalty bunch by saying, "We’re all going to die, so it should be called the early death penalty."

The Gallup Poll Reports:  Support For The Death Penalty Has Increased Since The September 11th Terrorist Attack On The World Trade Center
The Gallup Organization asked adults the following question:

Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?

Editor’s comment: the question should have been:

"Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person who has committed an aggravated murder?"

Because not every murder is eligible for the death penalty, only the worst ones.

Prior to the September 11th terrorist attack on New York’s World Trade Center, 65 % of those polled said they favored the death penalty for a person convicted of murder. 27% said no, and 8% had no opinion.

After the attack, support for the death penalty rose and opposition declined. 68% favored the death penalty, 26% opposed it, and those who had no opinion declined to 6%.

  For Against No Opinion
2001 Oct 11-14 68 26 6
2001 May 10-14 65 27 8

"IQ Testing In Death Penalty Cases Has Become A Charade. . . Honesty Went Out Of The Death Penalty A Long Time Ago"
Regrettably, defense cases often attract examiners who are such zealots to 'save the life' of the accused murderer that they toss all professional ethics to the wind. . ." says Dr. Michael Welner, Chairman of The Forensic Panel, New York, NY.
Michael Welner, M.D.

Michael Welner, M.D.

Attention Death Row:  Button up your shirt to the top, get those coke bottle glasses on the internet, you know, the ones with the black frames, and get a dorky haircut from Officer Bob.  Retardation is in.  In the continuing battleground over the death penalty, the ability to appear retarded has emerged as the most powerful weapon in the new psychiatric mitigation arsenal.  The impact threatens the credibility of American neuropsychology.

Several recent cases have highlighted the question of whether a mentally retarded person can be executed.  John Paul Penry of Texas (now known as Johnny-the more juvenile appellation adopted for purposes of his makeover) reportedly has an IQ ranging from 51 to 63.  Ernest McGarver, who killed his boss in North Carolina and whose case will be heard by the United States Supreme Court, recently dipped to 67 from an IQ ranging from 70 to 88 in earlier years.  Seventy, by the way, is traditionally regarded as the IQ below which one can be possibly considered as retarded, depending on function.

What the United States Supreme Court and other courts, and even prosecution agencies, have not yet factored in is the pervasiveness of professional expert witness malingering that infests capital defendant examinations today.  IQ is but one component of the assessment of retardation; but the number continues to eclipse awareness that other important criteria must also be factored into whether a person is genuinely retarded.

This becomes especially significant when one considers how easy it is to fake a bad performance on an IQ test.  Can examiners pick up faking on an IQ test?  Sure.  But they have to want to know the truth of his idiocy or intelligence.

How else to explain the curious phenomenon of how Mr. McGarver has lost IQ points, which defies understanding of IQ?  Such shaving to get under the retardation Mendozaa Line to suit the adversarial system has as much credibility as the East German trainers who got jiggy with steroids to help their athletes win at the Olympics.  Do the American people realize what a charade IQ testing in the capital-eligible has become?

Regrettably, defense cases often attract examiners who are such zealots to "save the life" of the accused murderer that they toss all professional ethics to the wind like the therapist who falls in love and elopes with his patient.  In our experience working on cases for both defense and prosecution, we too often see tests conducted for the purpose of distorting the incapacity of the examinee as much as possible.

In one example, from a case recently referred to The Forensic Panel, a well-credentialed neuropsychologist, who has even written about testing the Spanish speaking, conducted tests on such a defendant even though those measures had not even been normed properly.  One colleague familiar with his work asserts this examiner does not even speak Spanish fluently.

Perhaps the retarded shouldn't be executed.  That question absolutely deserves the consideration it gets.  However, honesty went out of the death penalty debate a long time ago.  Let the Supreme Court beware that the science they pass judgment on is all too often of the order of the medical disqualification from service in Vietnam.  How sad that the professional's role in the death penalty debate has so degenerated, and that scientific colleagues are often responsible.  A claim of retardation, for them, is no eligible defense. 

Source:  The Forensic Panel Letter, http://echo.forensicpanel.com/

Commonwealth's Attorneys Association Supports Death Penalty Before Legislative Committee
George Moore, President of the Kentucky Commonwealth's Attorneys Association, addressed the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee of the Kentucky General Assembly concerning the position of Kentucky's prosecutors on the death penalty.

The following are the remarks made by President Moore to the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee:

George Moore, President, Commonwealth's Attorneys Association

"Chairman Lindsey, Chairman Stivers, members of the Committee, on behalf of the Commonwealth’s Attorneys Association I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. We recognize that you are committed to a full and complete hearing on the issues surrounding the death penalty; and that you are seeking to serve your constituents in the best possible manner.

The Public Overwhelmingly Supports The Death Penalty, According To Polls

The Gallup Organization shows that in May of this year 65% of the American public believed in the death penalty. There are no figures that I found in the public domain following the events of September 11, but I have a high degree of confidence that the number will have gone even higher at this point. Despite the claims of the organized anti death penalty groups, the vast majority of the American Public continues to support the availability of this punishment.

I share that belief and I submit to you that there are those citizens in our midst who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. It is my belief that all life is sacred, but that does not mean that society can or should be denied the opportunity to protect the public from individuals who have killed, and may well kill again. There is no adequate substitute for the death penalty. When we have a society that produces Tim McVeigh within our own boundaries, and committed terrorists from without our boundaries, our basic survival is at risk.

Death Penalties Are Imposed By Juries Made Up By Average Citizens

However, as I stated a second ago, the death penalty is only one of several punishment options that are available in particularly brutal or egregious cases. It is important to note that one reason the public supports the death penalty is because it is administered in the best judicial system that the world has to offer. We have been shown this stark contrast on the national news within the past month. This is not a system where some select group of individuals, or one despot holding onto power, can condemn another citizen to a death before thousands of cheering people in a sports stadium. Rather, the American public in general, and the population of Kentucky in particular know this penalty is subject to the most rigorous review, and imposed by their fellow citizens.

Death Penalty Opponents Make False Claims To Support Their Positions

This picture is in stark contrast to the negative image projected by the opponents of the death penalty. To hear them tell it, citizens are being put to death by a vengeful government motivated by evil principles and which operates in a most careless manner. All of those claims are false when viewed in the light of objective evidence. If you would allow me, I would like to address just a few.

We are told that the death penalty is