What time is it? (execution time)

Execution opponents engage in some of their most desperate arguments when they make the claim that when death sentences are carried out late at night, they intentionally scheduled to hide the event. Evidence to the contrary of these claims includes the fact that schedules are posted well in advance. Additionally, everyone in the prison knows what will happen the night of an execution, but the vast majority have no “say so” when it comes to changing things around them.

The prison population is comprised mostly of, you guessed it, offenders. Death penalty foes purposely ignore security measures intended to protect witnesses, participants, offenders and other prison staff. The impact of scheduling executions at a time when operations are at a relative lull should be obvious. Most offenders sleep peacefully while the condemned are read their last rites or encouraged to be calm and accept their punishment. The condemned murderer exits prison grounds in an inconspicuous vehicle. Nobody usually notices.

Prison schedules are an important part of what makes them secure. Offenders used to rituals are lulled into a sense of security. They know what to expect and when to expect certain things. Creating schedule exceptions means that something new or special is occurring and gives them reason to question what’s going on or test security for flaws.

Condemned inmates aren’t the only offenders in the prison. Making one class of offenders “more special” makes all the rest “less special”, even on execution night. Undue attention can motivate offenders to fight amongst themselves or to do other things to draw attention.

Another obvious or likely question is, if executions are indeed “special events” inside the prison, why not eliminate them? The answer to that is simple. Prisoners should not be allowed to dictate what their sentences should be. Justice should be what the courts (or jurists) determine, based on the law. Capital punishment is part of North Carolina law.

Appropriate punishments should continue to include the occasional and deserved execution (for premeditated murders with aggravating circumstances) because not all murderers can be contained inside prison walls. Imprisonment alone doesn’t address the crimes of all murderers either. Meting out a single sanction to all murderers doesn’t acknowledge the heinousness of the worst or most predatory… and just because a few who truly deserve execution escape it doesn’t mean that they all should either.

Convicted murderers (all of them) should be considered potentially dangerous… and to encourage violent criminals to believe that they should continue contacting the outside world (via prison ministry groups or the media?) is contrary to the needs of public safety and justice. Yet certain organizations (trial lawyers, radical groups and prison ministries) actually encourage offenders to make themselves known outside prison walls or pair them with pen pals.

Many of those who advocate for condemned inmates are “part timers” when it comes to their involvement. They can afford to look at the system in idealistic ways and insinuate that we should have a “perfect judicial system” or a perfected execution method before we allow executions to resume. These aren’t the same persons who’ve lost relatives and friends to the predators the wind up on death row. The average anti-death penalty protestor is someone that doesn’t know what it’s like to tell the mother and father of a real victim that their child has been murdered. The average anti-death penalty protester doesn’t believe that murder or other violent crime will affect their family. These “part timers” have the luxury of being able to shuck their business suits and ties, or Thai dyed T-shirts at the end of the day and forget that living predators would think nothing of intimidating (or killing) those who’ve testified against them. Their idealism is admirable but it’s not based on reality.

Death penalty foes have no use for a “real” death penalty or a death row because in their minds, the circumstances (or aggravating factors) that would lead reasonable persons to believe there is such a thing as a capital crime don’t exist. They count states like New York and New Jersey as “death penalty states” even when they don’t actually execute. “OJ Innocence” is their standard. Life, even psychopathic ones, no matter how dangerous is so precious to them that they’d rather risk innocent ones... they forget that murderers love to manipulate their advocates into getting them released… so that they might harm others. Is it any surprise that these persons (DP foes) don’t acknowledge that there are more offenders who’ve been released from prisons after serving time for first or second degree murder than there are on death row? These same persons and groups don’t acknowledge the behaviors that offenders engage in while they are incarcerated (except for participation in religious groups)… or escapes. 14 murderers are currently in escape status from the North Carolina prison system. No matter what your position is on capital punishment, the fact that these murderers are not serving their sentences should deserve notice.

Do prison schedules prevent death penalty opponents from turning executions into yet another public spectacle? If the protests outside the prison walls are any indication, then the answer is “No”. They (death penalty foes) cross lines, get arrested and perpetuate myths with astounding ease. These acts all sell papers or get airtime. If some of these “actors” lose some sleep over execution schedules, maybe that’s a “good thing”?

Meanwhile, the vast majority of North Carolinians don’t feel a need to prevent what’s happening in the execution chamber, no matter what time of day prison staff happens to schedule it. If ordinary citizens distrust the judicial system now it’s because it’s so easily slowed or broken by frivolous arguments and obvious grandstanding. For its part, the General Assembly should be ashamed of its inaction. Leadership seems to be confused or stuck in “wait and see” mode.

At the beginning (or the end) of any given day does it really matter what time it is when a condemned inmate is executed? No! Executions aren’t scheduled for the convenience of demonstrators or media, nor should they be. Public safety, justice and the schedules of the vast majority of the other prison “residents” should have a priority.

Counting the wrong thousand

Recently I learned that Kenneth Lee Boyd could become the 1000^th murderer executed since 1977, when capital punishment was reinstated. I’ve given the issue of capital punishment serious thought over the past few years and publicly shared some of my thoughts about this issue on occasion. Death penalty foes and the media have focused on a grim statistic, one that demonstrates their confusion about the issue in general. My point here is that they are counting murderers as if they are some kind of victim.

The statistics that persons who advocate against the death penalty often fail to acknowledge are the lives of innocent victims who died at the hands of these condemned/executed inmates. I found the following information on the Internet:

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Pending/scheduled_executions.htm

1977 - 1997 Executions	Murderers	Victims
	434	690
1998 Executions	68	134
1999 Executions	98	177
2000 Executions	85	156
2001 Executions	66	267
2002 Executions	71	120
2003 Executions	65	129
2004 Executions	59	88
	946	1761

It’s easy to see that there is an average of nearly two victims per murderer or inmate who gets executed. Another statistic that death penalty foes fail to acknowledge is that 100% of these condemned inmates were guilty of the capital murders they were executed for.

I don’t make a point of attending death penalty related rallies or protests. Persons like me who support capital punishment are not “bloodthirsty” or vengeful. We only expect that the law be carried out to its fullest (so that the innocent might be better protected). Death penalty protests are usually held or organized by persons who have some tie to condemned inmates. Such persons are quick to equate convictions with executions or an acquittal with actual innocence. There is no sense in trying to reason with such persons. Many of these rallies are attended by students whose knowledge of the judicial system comes from fictional works such as “Dead Man Walking”, “The Green Mile” or the “The Fugitive”. They’ve already made up their minds. Their motivations are often very selfish or narrow minded. They are there to dance for the cameras, to court the media and each other.

I would consider going to Central Prison on the night of an execution. I wouldn’t join the protesters in the parking lot though. I sent Warden Polk an email a while back requesting to be a witness for the state if space were made available. I have my own reasons for supporting capital punishment and if I were asked to attend an execution it would be to confirm my beliefs about this subject. I doubt it would change my perspective much though.

There don't seem to be any questions of guilt in Boyd’s case, he’s admitted to the murders. It seems like a slam dunk in terms of an execution this time. To my knowledge, family members of the victims support this sentence. I plan to send a letter to Governor Easley supporting the execution of this double murderer today.

Three NC Murderers Scheduled for Execution

North Carolina Department of Correction Secretary Theodis Beck has set the execution dates for three North Carolina inmates.

Steven Van McHone is scheduled to be executed at 2 a.m. on Nov. 11, 2005. The execution is scheduled for 2 a.m. at Central Prison in Raleigh.

McHone, 35, was sentenced to death March 7, 1991 in Surry County Superior Court for the June 1990 murders of Mildred Johnson Adams and Wesley Dalton Adams Sr.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/0414p.pdf

McHone’s prison behaviors include: SUBSTANCE POSSESSION, PROFANE LANGUAGE, DISOBEY ORDER, FIGHTING, and UNAUTHORIZED FUNDS.

McHones convictions include: MURDER FIRST DEGREE (PRINCIPAL), FAILURE TO STOP FOR ACCIDENT (PRINCIPAL), FELONY B&E (PRINCIPAL), LARCENY (OVER $200) (PRINCIPAL) and MISD B&E (PRINCIPAL).



Elias Hanna Syriani is scheduled to be executed at 2 a.m. on Nov. 18, 2005.


Syriani, 67, was sentenced to death June 12, 1991 in Mecklenburg County Superior Court for the summer 1990 murder of Teresa Yousef Syriani. He stabbed her 28 times with a screwdriver. She had filed for divorce days earlier.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0412.U.pdf

Syriani’s prison behaviors include: DISOBEY ORDER.
Syriani’s convictions include: MURDER FIRST DEGREE (PRINCIPAL).



Kenneth Lee Boyd , is scheduled to be executed at 2 a.m. on Dec. 2, 2005.

Boyd, 57, was sentenced to death July 14, 1994 in Rockingham County Superior Court for the March 1988 murders of Julie Curry Boyd and Thomas Dillard Curry.

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/slip/slip96/547-88-2.html

Boyd’s prison behaviors include: PROFANE LANGUAGE, and DISOBEY ORDER.

Boyd’s convictions include: MURDER FIRST DEGREE (PRINCIPAL), and ABANDONMENT (PRINCIPAL).

Matters of Procedure vs. Political Hacks

Cries for a study on capital punishment in North Carolina have been driven by an occasional acquittal, pardon, some decisions retry cases or exonerations. Not to resort to legal "nitpicking" but at least one of these cases where doubts of guilt existed still resembles “OJ type innocence” (hardly proven or actual). Come to think of it, no one-armed men were seen running from the crime scene and the victim didn't "murder himself". If the "legal landscape" had been unchanged by all of these events, reasonable persons might wonder if we should expect more of the same. Fortunately, and as a matter of procedure and ongoing review by persons more intimately (professionally) interested and involved in the process, this is not so.

Many of those who advocate for more study chose not to acknowledge that the current appellate process culled these cases where questions about guilt might exist from the “capital stringer” before they were executed (or even scheduled for execution). Equally ignored by moratorium or study sponsors are newly enacted laws requiring all prosecutors to disclose more evidence prior to trial or during the discovery process. Some of the requirements related to disclosure merely documented the existing procedures practiced by DA’s. To be sure, it’s clear that all lawyers (prosecutors and defense) involved in capital trials will now have to abide the same predefined (by law) levels of discovery.

There is no rush to execute those who are condemned and innocent persons are not being executed in our state. It’s arguable that many persons who advocate for an outright moratorium on executions confuse occasional wrongful convictions with wrongful executions. The wrongful execution rate is zero.

Many of those who have requested the proposed study on capital punishment have clients to represent or an agenda that includes abolition of the death penalty. A “fake death penalty” (or policy of moratoria) serves them just as well as (or better than) outright abolition. There’s no arguing with persons who insist on referring to unpublished or incomplete UNC studies that include questionable interpretations of possible racial bias when it comes to sentencing proven murderers. There are others who find it politically convenient to attack the judicial system or delay executions of murderers that truly deserve their sentence. Instead investing careful thought into how the courts work or providing thoughtful suggestions on how the courts might respond more fairly towards minorities, these persons waste little time demanding that the capital process be (temporarily?) shut down.

It’s not new news that a contentious issue such as capital punishment is likely to draw persons who really have no desires to see what some persons call “justice”. The creation of another legislative study commission could create a venue for these persons to grandstand for their causes or engage in self promotion and further erode public confidence in the system. What would moratorium or study sponsors say if the participants in proposed study commissions were required to be “death qualified” in many of the same ways that juries are?

Instead of allowing political hacks and special interests to manipulate the justice system, we should encourage thoughtful review of each criminal case (individually) using the courts as they are intended. Requiring “just another study” would amount to a “one-time review” of the system. Isn’t this redundant because the appellate process already provides multiple levels of mandatory review as a matter of procedure in each and every capital case? Put another way, doesn’t each and every capital case trigger a review of the issues of fairness in the system? What can’t moratorium (or study) sponsors study (on their own?) while executions of the guilty continue? Why should North Carolinians be forced to fund and endure the personal learning curves of moratorium advocates while proven predators escape justice?

Avoiding a lethal Oops...

The bedwetting alarmists are calling for a moratorium on executions again in the Raleigh News and Disturber. That should come as no surprise to even casual readers of the paper because those on staff there (editors or columnists or some combination of both) have already decided somehow that only a moratorium (on executing the guilty) can be in our best interests.

Imbedded in the “pep talk” to persons who’d support the idea of a halt to executions is another reference to their “poster boy” Alan Gell. No surprise there either. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the N&O to acknowledge that Gell was never even scheduled for an execution and that a working system (minus the new laws relating to disclosure) is what eventually led to his eventual acquittal. Acquittals occur when there’s a weak case state’s against a suspect in a case. Does anyone remember O.J. Simpson, or Ron and Nicole? Nobody at the N&O (or promoting a moratorium) is writing about Allen Ray Jenkins, that’s for sure.

The wheels of justice are surely slow but there are no doubts about the guilt of those who’ve been recently executed and no one is currently scheduled for execution now. So why can’t these alarmists schedule a review while justice runs her course? The answer to that question is apparent, the moratorium (or halt) is the real goal and the study or any potential improvement or constructive suggestion that these persons might have for the system is an afterthought (for moratorium supporters or death penalty foes, in some circles it has been said that these are really the same persons).

Oops, in case no one noticed, the wrongful execution rate is zero. Meanwhile, the number of inmates who have already murdered who could have been executed or who committed additional crimes while behind bars is certainly greater than zero and increasing almost every day.

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/admin/memorial.htm
http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/escList
http://crrp41.doc.state.nc.us/docs/pubdocs/0006461.PDF

Should North Carolinians be encouraged to support a study commission that consists of a league of moratorium supporters? Will other persons who can demonstrate that their interests lie in what's best for all North Carolinians (not just death row inmates) be included? Now there are some questions that need to be asked and answered before Speaker Black considers taking a bill to the floor for a vote or creating any special study commissions!!

Death penalty foes try to buy justice

Don’t get me wrong, if we can encourage condemned inmates to behave during their time behind bars that’s a good thing. Promotion of constructive behaviors in our prisons can certainly help reduce medical expenses that result from the assaults that are inflicted on other inmates and corrections staff. Good behaviors behind bars don’t make up for past bad deeds though. The Lord knows; families of victims deserve more restitution when/if they can get some.

Should monetary compensation be considered before a condemned inmate is actually executed?

Anti-Death penalty groups seem to be asking that question. It’s quite possible that many death penalty foes have forgotten that in the list of ingredients (aggravating and motivating factors) that got many of these condemned inmates where they are (death row) there is often 1 part “camouflage” for every part “predator”. No murderer can ever make up for the life or lives that they’ve already extinguished (certainly not with money).

Who can say for sure what motivates some inmates to attempt to compensate their victims for the trouble they caused? It’s also worth asking, who can guarantee that many of these same murderers won’t attempt even more violent crimes (additional murders and escape)?

Today’s “poster boy” for “not executing the guilty” seems to be a Jeffrey Kandies whose current residence is Central Prison in North Carolina. Too bad articles about him fail to mention his 9 infraction records behind bars. Most of these infractions are for using profane language or disobeying an order but he was found guilty of possession of a weapon during his incarceration. Obviously, wise persons would never turn their back towards a proven murderer (even this one).

Kandies’ execution seems to be getting closer as his appeals work their way through the courts. His infractions are minor compared to other condemned inmates but one must never lose track of what crime he committed to “earn” his death sentence. Some prosecutors could argue at length that those on death row are no closer to dying than the average citizen. A moratorium on executions could make Kandies’ execution a little less real for him (and for those that remain on death row or others who might consider murdering an innocent victim).

Legislators in North Carolina are currently considering what some persons call a “temporary halt” to executions while they conduct a study of the judicial system. At the same time they fail to explain why they can’t study the system without a moratorium. Moratorium supporters (alarmists?) seem to think that an innocent person might be executed or that the system is unfair. Most families of victims view moratoria as a “legislative continuance with additional uncertainty” (not a judicial one) in an already endless series of reviews (a defense tactic).

What no one is asking is, “what constitutes fairness for those who would be forced to endure the learning curve of the moratorium advocates?” (i.e., families of victims or those that feel threatened by these murderers). No one seems to expect death penalty foes to accept responsibility for any death row inmates who might be executed during the two year “time out” if one stabs another inmate or a corrections staff person. What’s “fair” about that?

When condemned inmates or those that advocate for them actually help victims, it’s admirable but, no one should be tempted into thinking that restitution can make the families of murder victims whole. Justice should never be “For Sale” because some murderers attempt to compensate their victims.

Let’s just hope that our leaders aren’t so simple minded that they will decide right from wrong on this issue based only on the number of phone calls or emails that they get from the alarmists that think a moratorium is necessary.

Lazy Reporting

Patricia Parker doesn't really know if she wants her brother's killer punished by death. Her brother’s murderer has not been brought to justice and she has not been presented with all of the facts related to the crime. Her first hand qualifications for judging the judicial system don’t exist (yet).

Yet she’s being quoted by news media (as a representative of murder victims or their families?) and advocating for a moratorium on executions as if she really knew or represented all of their best interests? As a relative of a murder victim she’s certainly entitled to her opinions whatever they are on capital punishment (as an individual) but she doesn’t speak for all victims! It’s worth noting that if her brother’s case ever gets tried in “capital” way and the murderer is sentenced to death she stands a good chance of having at least two opportunities (sentencing and clemency) to voice her opinions on what she thinks the appropriate sentence might be (in the proper forums, i.e., not just the media).

Parker doesn’t even speak for the majority of persons who’ve lost a loved one to homicide or a majority of those family members who’ve seen the murderer of their loved one sent to death row. Reality is that District Attorneys are reluctant to pursue a sentence that the family of a murder victim doesn’t support. This doesn’t mean that all murder cases should be treated the same when relatives of murder victims oppose (or support) the execution of a murderer either. Sometimes the best interests of the state require an execution (or clemency) and these interests conflict with the desires of those who are related to the victims. These “conflicts” don’t mean that the death penalty (or an occasion commutation) is wrong.

But that’s what Parker and moratorium advocates are saying. If a moratorium is enacted, and by delaying executions for at least two years, the state will be treating all proven murderers in the same way. Moratorium supporters are engaging outright dismissals of the heinousness, brutality, dangerousness (even behind bars) of the murderers. Juries have said that these crimes scream for or “require a death sentence”. Even the sheer number of victims that some murderers killed (of those who might be executed in those two years) is being dismissed to some extent.

The next murderer scheduled for an execution is Earl Richmond. By all accounts this offender is guilty of no less than four murders. Moratorium supporters would have the state delay his execution so that they might review the fairness of sentences like his. How many murders would Richmond have to commit to be eligible for death or for his death sentence to be “fair”?

The most recent execution was attended by at least two relatives of a victim (Mary Gladden). William “Bugs” Powell bludgeoned Gladden’s head to the point he’d dislodged one of her eyeballs. Despite the dislodged eye and evidence that Powell showed little or no concern for his victim after he was jailed Powell’s lawyers argued that the murder was not premeditated. Unbelievable!

What is believable is the murderers who have been executed in recent years will never cause harm to other persons (corrections staff, other inmates or themselves). The murderers, who were executed, are dead AND THEY WERE GUILTY! There are no looming questions about their guilt either.

Parker and her five friends do not speak for the majority of those who have lost a loved one to homicide. Giving moratorium advocates half the media exposure or half the attention doesn’t give their opinions more weight that others who are right. The arguments of capital punishment should not be reduced to infighting amongst persons who are related to murder victims. Victims should never be pitted against each other like moratorium advocates are attempting to encourage.

Isn’t it apparent that when moratoriums on executions are observed or abolition occurs that only those persons that oppose the idea of an occasional and deserved execution get what they want?

Hopefully the General Assembly won’t turn the moratorium issue into just another political issue. Some of our leaders have already engaged in tactics that include “race baiting” by focusing their observations on perceived racial disparities in prison or death row populations without acknowledging the behaviors (murder, rape, robbery etc), which require the sentences. Favors should not be traded or alliances made (or broken) so that we can protect some guilty and violent murderers from a timely execution. If lawmakers want to study the system or suggest constructive changes that will improve the system for all of those who are accused nothing prevents that. It’s clear that those who support a moratorium are only listening to persons who advocated for the condemned (defense attorneys, relatives of the murderers, prison clergy, pacifist/activists).

Moratorium supporters repeatedly (and conveniently) fail to acknowledge the value of a judicial system that has identified cases (including Gell) where guilt was less than absolutely sure and provided relief when it was appropriate. Instead of making constructive suggestions on how to improve the system, they merely promote indecision (delays) and promote one bill. When the system works, all they see is flaws. The moratorium legislation only amounts to an attack on a sentence; it’s not a genuine attempt to improve anything. They have one item on their agenda; no other tangible legislation is on their radar.

When it comes to the arguments about meting out death sentences (fairly); just who are the sponsors and supporters of the moratorium legislation listening to? When moratorium advocates listen to persons whose primary duty is to represent a client (to the exclusion of others), you should wonder how objective these persons could be. There’s no question about it, they will protect the guilty if they can. And the closer you look into their agenda, the less sense they make.

Death penalty opponents or moratorium advocates (some persons say they are the same thing) only understand that “they know what’s best for all murderers” and they really don’t care what the results of any studies are. They just want to steer us all down a course that includes more delays and indecision (not justice?). These persons who propose moratoria are not among those who might be most directly affected if a murderer escapes his prison cell or kills again. Maybe the next time a new prison needs to be built, it should be in “line of sight” of where these moratorium supporters live or work? Maybe then they might understand? Then again, maybe they have been so socially engineered by their precious murderers that they really don’t know or care how much of a danger they might represent to others anymore.

The "report" (by AP or ABC?) wasn't really a genuine attempt to report truth or real news. It represents more of an attempt to inflame (and misinform?) viewers/readers. Some relatives of murder victims might not support the execution of some murderers (Patricia Parker really doesn't know) but these persons don't speak for all friends and family members of homicide victims (nor should they). The "report" was just STAGED AND SPOONFED MORATORIUM PROPAGANDA AND A PRODUCT OF LAZY REPORTING

Execution Date Set for Earl Richmond - May 6th, 2005

Earl Richmond DOC# 0343602



Richmond was found guilty of the November 2nd, 1991 first-degree rape and the first-degree murder of Helisa Hayes. While at the home of his victim, defendant had "forceful" sex with Helisa, beat her, and strangled her to death. Defendant then took Helisa’s son Phillip into the bathroom, where defendant strangled him with the electrical cord of a curling iron and stabbed him numerous (at least 20!) times in his head and body with a pair of scissors. After killing Phillip, defendant went into Darien's bedroom, sat her up on her bed, and strangled her to death with a curling-iron cord. Ms. Hayes’ father, William Stewart, discovered the bodies of his daughter and two grandchildren on November 4th when, after having not heard
from Ms. Hayes for two days, he became concerned about her safety. During this initial interview, Richmond told police that he had not been to Ms. Hayes’ home during the weekend of the murders. Moreover, Richmond sought to shift attention from himself. Richmond became a suspect when his sister, Andrea Knight, informed police that she had dropped Richmond off near Ms. Hayes’ home on the early morning of November 2nd after they and others attended an all night house party. In light of this information, police requested a suspect rape kit from Richmond, which revealed, through DNA evidence, that the semen found inside of Ms. Hayes’ body belonged to Richmond. Richmond, after initially denying any involvement in the murders of Ms. Hayes and her two children, confessed to having committed the murders.

In the opinion of Dr. John D. Butts, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, the adult victim died as the result of strangulation. She had numerous blunt-force injuries; tears, scrapes, and bruises; abrading of the skin in the entrance to her vagina; and blood over a portion of her brain beneath a bruise on her scalp. Defendant's first-degree rape conviction properly supports his conviction for the first-degree murder of the adult victim under the felony murder theory.

While defendant may have consumed alcohol and cocaine prior to the murders, there is little evidence of the degree of his intoxication at the time of the murders. The evidence, however, suggests that defendant methodically killed everyone in the house, leading one victim into the bathroom and sitting another on the edge of the bed. He also tried to hide his crimes by pouring alcohol on the adult victim's genitals and taking with him the scissors he had used to stab one of the child victims. Such behavior is indicative of a capacity for premeditation and deliberation.

While awaiting trial on these charges, Richmond was charged in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with the April 4, 1991 murder of Lisa Ann Nadeau, an army dispersing clerk at the Fort Dix military base. On May 28, 1993, Richmond was convicted of Ms. Nadeau’s murder and subsequently sentenced to a term of life imprisonment.

Infractions include: REFUSE SUBMIT/DRUG/BREATH TEST, WEAPON POSSESSION, MISUSE MEDICINE, NO THREAT CONTRABAND, ILLEGAL CLOTHING, and UNAUTHORIZED FUNDS.

Long enough?

It’s amazing how much information you can glean from a short letter, if you just look. On January 31st, 2004 North Carolina inmate #0215851 had a letter to the editor published in the pages of the Raleigh News and Observer. Obviously offender Gregory H. Jones has too much time on his hands! Maybe he’s not had enough dishes to wash at Odom Correction Institute where he is being held in medium (not close?) custody.



Imagine if you were a relative of Jones’ victim(s?). The idea that the man who murdered your loved one and was supposedly “locked away” where no one would let him invade your lives again in 1978 just had his words delivered to your doorsteps today. Unfortunately, a “life sentence” then really hasn’t changed much today even though the lawyers say its “life without parole” and try to persuade folks that it should be enough. Justice isn’t always fair is she?

Aren’t Jones and other inmates like him who read and then write the papers using the media as a means to conduct further attacks on the families of their victims or others they have some grudge against? Some certainly think so. From the courtroom to the prison, and then they “court the media” from prison, for a life term? Isn’t this what’s happening now? What’s surprising is that Jones didn’t use some space in his editorial to complain about prison food or having to work.

How convenient it was that Jones saw fit to justify his own release stating that he’d served more time than he should have. Doesn’t he understand that he waived any rightful claim to parole after committing the first of his violent 103+ infractions behind bars?

Jones is in prison for 1st degree murder and another set of violent criminal offenses. His next review date is September 20th, 2005. It’s possible that the family and friends of his victims have passed or moved away. He committed his murders in the 1970’s.

Why should an offender like Jones even entertain notions of freedom? He’s certainly not been a model inmate. His 103+ infractions include: ACTIVE RIOTER, ASSAULT STAFF W/WEAPON, SUBSTANCE POSSESSION, ATTEMPT CLASS A OFFENSE, WEAPON POSSESSION, NON THREATENING FIRE, PROVOKE ASSAULT, REFUSE SUBMIT/DRUG/BREATH TEST, ATTEMPT CLASS B OFFENSE, MISUSE MEDICINE, PROFANE LANGUAGE, DISOBEY ORDER, FIGHTING, VERBAL THREAT, BARTER/TRADE/LOAN MONEY, ATTEMPT CLASS C OFFENSE, NO THREAT CONTRABAND, CREATE OFFENSIVE CONDITION, ILLEGAL CLOTHING, PROPERTY TAMPERING, UNAUTHORIZED FUNDS, POSSESSION MONEY, UNKEMPT ROOM, and MISUSE SUPPLIES.

Isn’t this (infraction record and the reason he’s in prison) proof to any reasonable person that Jones is and will remain a danger to himself and to others for the rest of his life? Yet each year he will be reviewed because he is “eligible” for parole. The law requires that parole commissioners review Jones’ case at least once a year now, until he dies in prison or is released.
http://www.doc.state.nc.us/parole/truths.htm

The state changes sides in cases like these. The primary obligation of the state now seems to be to make sure that the offender is granted all of his rights and is protected. He must be protected from other inmates (and himself). He is also allowed to voice his opinions in the news. This is at the expense of the relatives of his victims and other innocent North Carolina taxpayers.

So Jones wants to save the State and taxpayers a fortune. It’s quite likely that once released, Jones would cause harm to another victim and be right back where he is today or on death row in Central Prison. This would almost certainly mean that we would have to endure the extra expense of another indigent client and the costs of victimization to another taxpayer (or worse).

Obviously, we should all think twice before performing executions and use the laws and the courts to ensure that only the guilty and most dangerous offenders are the ones who get executed. Some death penalty foes contend that there is no real proof that capital punishment deters potential killers from committing murder. I’d prefer to believe that Jones represents one example of what deterrence can do. He’s not murdered any corrections staff (not yet anyway), but we continue to play the prison version of Russian roulette to pacify those who didn’t want him executed. Jones represents a loaded pistol with the hammer cocked; we are counting on him not to pull his own trigger and to control himself just enough not to actually harm himself or someone else.

Sometimes, (and despite the best efforts of corrections staff) offenders hurt others or become hurt. What incentive is there for an offender like Jones (who is obviously violent) from committing additional crimes? You can take away his television, visitation privileges, and access to the prison canteen and other things with only minimal effect. The only thing of value that this killer has left is the time he has on earth to eat, drink and breathe. The only thing he cares about is his life (not yours or anyone else’s). The threat of taking his life away is what has kept him from murdering again. A moratorium on executions only emboldens such inmates. When Justice blinks, the murderers abuse her.

31 on probation
277 on parole
182 on death row
5019 serving sentences inside NC Prisons

If justice were truly fair, Jones and inmates like him wouldn’t leave prison except to go to into a cemetery plot, and other inmates would be required to dig the hole. It’s too bad that there are more proven murderers who have served time for 1st degree murder who are on probation or parole than there are on death row. Maybe that’s what has motivated Jones to voice his opinions in the Raleigh News and Observer. It’s also a no-brainer that the N&O is probably one of the more popular newspapers in North Carolina prisons. Could this be because the Raleigh News and Observer more often sides with inmates, or confuses them with being victims? Or do many media sources like the N&O ignore victims and victim issues because their primary sources are those who advocate for the condemned or condemnable? I think it’s a little bit of both.

North Carolina legislators are considering a moratorium on executions. They believe that they might be doing the state a service by reviewing the fairness of sentencing of many murderers. Jones and a lot of other killers didn’t get to make it to death row. Is the General Assembly punishing the relatives of victims because we might not be executing often enough? Maybe...


ref:


Published: Jan 31, 2005Modified: Jan 31, 2005 1:15 AM
Long enoughhttp://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/2075907p-8455982c.html
According to your Jan. 8 article "New top-tier prison questioned," the state Department of Correction wants to build another $90 million, 1,000-man prison. Instead, why don't they parole the 2,600 prisoners eligible under the old laws?
The Fair Sentencing Act was in effect from 1980 to 1994. The "pre-fair" laws were before 1980. Some of us have done more than 24 years. I've done 29.
If the state would parole everyone eligible for parole, it wouldn't need new prisons. They could even close a few, and save the state a fortune.
Gregory H. Jones
(The writer, an inmate at Odom Correctional Institution, is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder.)

Nice guys on death row?

In recent days, I’ve noted that ex-death row inmate Allan Gell has made statements to the media implying that condemned inmates are “motivated to behave” or they may find it even more likely to be executed. That generally speaking, “the row” is a less violent place than "general population". Such remarks were made in what is obviously weak attempt to re-humanize death row inmates in the minds of North Carolinians, an effort which is being led by death penalty foes like Gell who say that they are promoting a study of the justice system and at the same time demanding a moratorium on executions. Having never spent time on death row as an inmate, I can’t profess first hand knowledge of what it’s like there or understand all the motivations that drive death row inmates, so I entertained Gell’s comments for a spell.

If as Gell says, the mere threat of an impending execution is enough to make at least some inmates think twice before committing additional and obviously violent (or even annoying) infractions, is that not also proof that capital punishment has a deterrent effect on crime? If there are some offenders that can’t be deterred by any sanction, shouldn’t the state consider executing these bad players first (if it can)?

Contrary to Gell’s statements, many death row inmates really are not well behaved. Recently executed murderers on North Carolina’s death row have been known to attack corrections officers and commit a number of different offenses while they sat on the row. If these inmates were moved to general population, there’s no guarantee that these murderers wouldn’t continue with their bad habits or become even more violent. More to the point, without an occasional and deserved execution these already violent felons could become even more violent. Seriously now, without a death penalty, what sanction will have any meaning to an offender who is already serving a life sentence (without parole)? You can’t add any real time to what the courts have already demanded that they serve. Adding a 2 years delay to the cycle only complicates matters and doesn’t come without some additional costs or risks.

How many proven “cop killers” or “kid killers”, wife beaters and robbers do we need to protect from an execution after they’ve already committed the most heinous crime of all (premeditated murder)? The death penalty abolitionists and state paid defense attorneys would have us protect all of them.

Today they are promoting a moratorium on executions. This they say is so that they can study the system and improve it. Supposedly their motivation is to save innocent lives. What about the innocent lives we risk (or lose) when we fail to execute? It slowly becomes more apparent that they intend to protect the guilty (even more than the innocent?).

Have the sponsors of the moratorium legislation actually lived in fear of a murderer who has already snuffed the life out of one of their loved ones? Doubtful. So whom do they represent?

A closer look at the persons who support the moratorium will show that they include persons of the clergy who minister to death row inmates, friends or family members of proven murderers, paid representation for the inmates (trial lawyers), well meaning but misguided students who are attacking a sentence instead of making constructive solutions, or so-called Person’s of Faith who would abolish capital punishment (no matter how violent the murderer).

Most of these moratorium supporters go home each night to a place that’s far away from Central Prison (or any other). They don’t live within line of sight of a corrections facility or a mental institution. They don’t get harassing phone calls from the murderers of their loved ones. They don’t live with the thought that a murderer might escape or disgrace the memory of their loved one even more by committing additional crimes either. Their social experiences include participation in these groups that glorify (or worship) death row inmates.

Due to the efforts and constant supervision of corrections staff, the average moratorium supporter, defense attorney or prison clergyman doesn’t have to worry very much about murderers attacking them when they visit "the row". It shouldn’t come as a surprise that most these murderers are reluctant to "bite the hands that feed them" (for as long as they are fed). Just who is using who more? Maybe that’s something they never considered studying… because they just can’t imagine murder happening to them or someone they love. Maybe one day, one of their "pets" will bite... and only then will one moratorium advocate understand why executions must continue... if for only a short time.

Execution Date Set for William D. Powell

State officials have announced a March 11th execution date for death row inmate William Powell #0239098.




Powell’s behaviors behind bars include: SUBSTANCE POSSESSION, DISOBEY ORDER, NO THREAT CONTRABAND, FAKE ILLNESS, and MISUSE SUPPLIES.

William Dillard Powell murdered Pantry convenience store clerk Mary Gladden on October 31st, 1991, by beating her on the head and face with a tire tool or lug wrench. Gladden was murdered for about $48 that was stolen from the register. Powell was observed at the crime scene; one eyewitness actually saw Powell inside the store at the approximate time (within 6 minutes) of the murder. Other evidence indicating Powell’s guilt includes taped confessions.

This murder was particularly brutal. The victim had numerous lacerations on her face, with corresponding skull fractures underneath. Part of her left ear was torn off. Her nose was broken on the left side, and her left eye was displaced due to a fracture of the bone behind the eye. The victim also had lacerations on her forearm and hand, indicating that she struggled for her life. Further, she had internal injuries. For example, she had bone fragments embedded in her brain from the numerous fractures. Her brain was torn in some places and protruded from the skull in others. Finally, she had several bruises on her brain and a sub-dural hemorrhage.

Powell has been determined to have an average IQ and normal concentration skills, language functions, sensory ability, and visual ability. Evidence showed that Powell was raised in a loving family, had worked as a jailer and with the fire department, and was well liked and not violent. An expert in psychology and neuropsychology, testified that he performed comprehensive testing of defendant on 22 November 1992. The results showed that defendant's memory, problem-solving skills, and motor functions are impaired. This was the result of using about a half gram of cocaine each day. Until two months prior to the murder the drugs were purchased from cashing social security checks that were meant for the support of his son. Prosecutors argued that Powell’s drug habit and lack of money is what motivated him to rob the grocery.

Two jailers at the Cleveland County jail testified that defendant had adjusted well to life as an inmate and had caused no problems. *Note: This contradicts his prison infraction record.

More information can be found in the State Supreme Court Opinion (Click Here)

When Lawyers Misspeak

Last September David Hoke and Debra Graves were brought before the North Carolina Bar to answer to their performance (or lack of it) as prosecutors in the initial trial of Alan Gell. The facts surrounding the Gell case have become almost self evident because of the extensive coverage from the Raleigh News and Observer. For those that missed it, evidence was withheld in the first Gell trial and as a result of that and new interpretations of physical (forensic) evidence by medical examiners, the case was subsequently retried and resulted in an eventual acquittal.

Today’s “digression” being offered up by N&O staff reporters (Joseph Neff) is related to some statements made by the state’s senior prosecutor, Jim Coman during a hearing where the NC Bar Association considered what punishment was appropriate for prosecutors Graves and Hoke. At issue is whether or not state prosecutors are intentionally withholding evidence that should be presented to defense attorneys when appeals are considered or prior to trial. It should be noted that recent legislation has been passed (that was inspired by the case in question) that now requires full disclosure of evidence against the accused prior to trial.

Anyone familiar with the Gell case already understands that established disclosure procedures allowed defense attorneys to uncover the questionable statements that were withheld at first trial. Eventually this information was used to impeach or undermine the testimony of witnesses who implicated Gell in the murder of Allen Ray Jenkins. Now media reporters and lawyers for condemned inmates believe they’ve discovered an “odd policy”.

It’s understandable that lawyers (or media persons?) representing condemned inmates should question why prosecutors might not divulge all witness statements before trial. Even still, some testimony or witness statements may seem more relevant to the case at hand than others or some statements resemble “trash”. Sometimes during interrogation or questioning witnesses become agitated or sarcastic and say things that they might later regret. Are prosecutors required to provide evidence or testimony to other lawyers that they believe is not true or just stupid things that angry 15-year-old girls say when they are implicated in a murder? What happened then is now a moot issue. The law now says even when those witnesses “talked trash” it should be shared prior to trial. The lawyers in the Gell trial have since been admonished (or publicly spanked?) for their indiscretions.

None of the statements that impeached witnesses for the state were permanently hidden. All the evidence that existed prior to trial was eventually turned over by the same prosecutors who were eventually admonished. Some would argue that Alan Gell got more consideration in the courts because his case was considered in a “capital way” and that this worked in his favor. Even those who know and love Alan Gell, knew he was no “choir boy” before Jenkins was murdered. If law enforcement and prosecutors were eager to believe in Gell’s guilt it might have been because he’d already impeached himself. These facts or Gell’s history as a felon prior to being accused of murdering Jenkins escapes acknowledgement in the pages of the N&O. Now, who is withholding more or more often?

Missing in the pages of the Raleigh News and Observer is any reference to who (other than Alan Gell) might have murdered Allen Ray Jenkins. In their search for a “story” (not truth?), they’ve focused on attacking officers of the court or faults they think they see in procedure. Suddenly (or not so suddenly) it has become more important to reference information (or digressions) about other unrelated cases (Munsey) instead of the case at hand (Gell). If there is “new news” on the Jenkins murder, when will readers hear about it? Or is it more important to focus on misstatements by state prosecutors?

The courts have spoken on the Gell case (acquittal). The North Carolina Bar Association has admonished the lawyers involved in withholding evidence in the first Gell trial. If defense attorneys suspect that evidence has been wrongfully withheld in individual cases, arguments should be presented in our courts and decided “one by one” based on evidence, testimony, logic and facts, not en-masse or supported only by rumor, hearsay or speculation. If the Attorney General’s office has ever engaged in any “odd policies”, past or present, on other cases, that remains to be seen.

Is the Raleigh News and Observer "reporting" news (as it happens) or manufacturing it? Or is it in the business of creating fear, uncertainty and doubt where there really doesn’t need to be? More importantly, where’s justice for the family of Allen Ray Jenkins? If this really is more than “just another story” to the N&O, maybe they can do more than poke at prosecutors who happen to misspeak.

Lost Generations

Statistically speaking black men are committing more crimes and face more and longer terms of incarceration. “These lost generations” are not just a racial issue or related to one race. Think of the victims that these young men (of all races) leave in their wake. The impacts are inter-racial and cross generational.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm

I consider myself lucky. I grew up in a household where my siblings and me lived with both my mother and father until I was almost 16. Then my parents divorced. Mom wasn’t rich; she was a schoolteacher. My father wasn’t any better off financially speaking. I grew up in South Florida in an area where drugs and bad influences were as common as anywhere else. Trouble was easy to find for those who weren’t afraid of it (or just didn’t care). Nothing prevented me from joining the military in the early 1980’s and I didn’t. I didn’t finish college either; I just went to work. The thought of going to prison was shameful. Taking something that wasn’t mine or harming someone else purposefully was appalling too.

A lot of kids these days don’t have any shame when it comes to criminal activities. Their role models are all eventually imprisoned or accused of some crime. Only a precious few (if any) college or professional athletes have clean records (legal or medical). They grow up with a Nintendo mentality (say “I’m sorry” and everything’s ok). They play Grand Theft Auto on video game machines at home in and in the real world.

Where do today’s youths learn about personal responsibility? Presidents commit adultery on the job, CEO’s are subpoenaed, investigated, convicted and imprisoned every year. When parent’s fail, why should we think it’s just their fault? Let’s face it, when “Junior” ends up in prison for life, it’s too darn late for everyone.

Members of the Saiz family have expressed support for the execution of convicted murderer Dwight McLean. They (Saiz’s) will share a life sentence dreading potential escapes or violent infractions of inmates like McLean. After sentencing, the State represents the offender; they are responsible for his well being now. As far as the State is concerned, the Saiz’s have all the justice they are going to get. It’s “case closed” as far as the courts are concerned. Lawyers say that life without parole means McLean will die in State custody. Lawyers also argue about the definition of the word “is”. No one can personally guarantee that McLean’s last breath of air will be drawn behind prison walls, or that he will never harm another person or never escape. Sad, ain’t it?

WRAL forgot who the victims are here. Yes, McLean was only a kid (17) when he murdered Robert Saiz, but 16 year old kids are given drivers licenses every day by the North Carolina DMV and they are entrusted to make life or death decisions on our roads. McLean committed PREMEDITATED MURDER, not an accidental traffic infraction. McLean wasn’t charged with being careless or stupid. He purposely pulled the trigger on a firearm (during a robbery) and shot his victim from behind (a victim trying to flee).

I don’t blame Dwight McLean’s parents for the murder of Robert Saiz. They didn’t pull the trigger. I blame Dwight McLean. He knew better and murdered anyway. Now he has to live with the consequences. Dwight McLean is not a victim! When we “feel sorry” for these murderers or put them up on a pedestal or glorify them in any way, we enable the next generation to do the same things.

The courts said that executing Dwight McLean might be the wrong thing to do; as a result, he was sentenced to “life”. Whose life? Only time will tell if he doesn’t harm a corrections officer, another offender or commit suicide. Things happen in prisons that are crueler than taking a nap on a gurney. There are no questions concerning guilt in McLean’s case. He’s not been in prison for all that long and he’s already committed a few “minor infractions”. Let us all hope that Saiz family's concerns about a mere life sentence or justifications for an execution are not confirmed. Dwight’s probably got another 50 years to go before this is over…

http://www.wral.com/news/3976105/detail.html

Laws, Lawyers and the Lawless

The New York Times recently published an extensive piece regarding some cases that the Supreme Court of the United States has rebuked (or might reverse) from the State of Texas. By some accounts recent reversals are supposed to send a message to the Fifth Circuit Court, that they need to focus on the principals of appellate law or previous Supreme Court decisions.

One of the arguments being made in the Supreme Court involves some Texas cases where white jurists and black defendants may have been involved in some sort of unfairness. What’s being implied (but not said, in as many words) is that some form of bias is the reason is why juries agreed on a death sentence, instead of life without parole. If these claims can be substantiated with proof of bias, that remains to been seen. On the surface, it looks like some defense attorneys think it is unreasonable to believe that a mostly white jury is capable of an impartial and objective decision for as long as the victim or defendant are not also white. How convenient?

Arguments are that these death sentences couldn’t have been a result of a jury’s impartial assessment of guilt or a defendant’s confirmed and established behaviors based on evidence, testimony, logic and facts, which were presented in court. Not when you ask a defense attorney, that’s for sure. I don’t usually read claims of unfairness aloud in a nasal tone for entertainment. Please excuse my sarcasm and disbelief. This doesn’t mean that claims of prejudice should be dismissed without due consideration or that they are considered flippantly.

One should not be surprised if some (or most) of these claims are just another series of weak boilerplate arguments that defense attorneys made on behalf of their clients . In many cases the racial bias claims are false ones. If bias does exist in an individual cases and jurists really have based their decisions on some prejudice, it should be argued, but with some kind of proof or witness testimony, not supposition. The courts should not be burdened with guesses or arguments that are made for the sake of arguing. Frivolous claims should result in some kind of disciplinary action but unfortunately, that’s not usually the case when baseless claims are made.

The purpose of playing the “racial card” is to shift blame for a verdict to other persons when juries decide that an execution is appropriate. The more desperate the client or the defense, the more likely there will be an attack on the courts. To some extent, trial lawyers are sometimes “professionally suicidal” when they sabotage their clients defense in some way (as drunken or sleepy lawyers) or are revealed to have used some arguably ineffective strategy. Another defense tactic is to attack the credibility of witnesses or jurists or other officers of the courts (judges or prosecutors).

A tendency for defense attorneys or media persons (or Hollywood actors) sensitive to the interests of death row inmates to reduce court arguments to “politics” (or ideology) is often observed as well. When prosecutors serve in higher (appellate) courts, it’s perceived to be an injustice to persons who are convicted by defense attorneys or advocates for the condemned. These justices serve at the pleasure of the public. When confidence in these persons is lost, they can be (and often are) replaced. If there are faults with decisions made in appellate courts, the Supreme Court of the United States has proven itself (repeatedly) capable of reversing decisions or admonishing inferior court decisions when they see error. For some reason, these persons who represent the condemned who find fault with appellate courts don’t find fault with public defenders that seek employment with private firms. Is that fair, or objective?

Oftentimes, the goal of the defense team is to reverse or re-try a case until a more satisfactory (for the accused) sentence or verdict (not guilty?) is reached. The defense’s first obligation is to their client or what they believe to be in the best interests of their client. That’s their perception of justice. It’s a necessary part of the judicial process and how adversarial parties achieve what some persons call “fairness”. If a criminal is wrongfully released because of an error, that is not "their problem" either. Really!

Part of the problem (undermined confidence in our courts) is founded in myth or ignorance. For instance, if all a person knew about trial lawyers or the courts was what they read in certain papers or anti-death penalty websites, justice could never be trusted. Contrary to popular belief, the requirements for passing State Bar exams or for becoming a lawyer don’t include alcohol related problems or some condition that makes a person a complete dolt or morally bankrupt. Rarely do advocates for the condemned describe their peers as professional or even remotely competent.

Reality is not TV; most trial lawyers (defense, prosecutors or judges) look and sound like normal persons. They are not actors or actresses who recite from scripts written by Hollywood’s best scriptwriters. In fact, many court proceedings are quite boring to most citizens.

Some cases are just made less boring. The media often “spins” cases in such a way that they can stimulate fear or uncertainty in even the most blatantly one-sided trials or decisions. When they (media) create doubt, it sure doesn’t hurt ratings (or revenue). The media is quick to point out that when prosecutors withhold evidence (even unintentionally), or when defense attorneys might have made a mistake. They remind the public that they should be wary. Yet, the media regularly withholds information about some murderers that makes many murder cases less controversial (offender infraction records during incarceration, prior offenses or convictions etc). Lies of omission are played for all they are worth, sometimes.

The goal of these persons who are advocating for condemned murderers is to undermine the faith that others (media, officers of the court, or the public) have in executions. The race card argument has nothing to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the client, and claim concerning prejudice are in many cases, nothing but a digression. Lawyers are using racial arguments as justification for postponements, these lawyers are engaging in “delay tactics”. These arguments are intended to avoid “the inevitable”, (delay and deny) for as long as possible. It should come as no surprise that many who represent indigent clients are compensated by the number of hours that they put into a case. So it should be even less of a shock when it’s made clear that many of the best arguments made on a clients behalf aren’t made until the last minute or until after an execution is actually scheduled.

Using racially charged arguments serves another purpose for defense attorneys. “Promotion of their client” is the politically correct term by these lawyers. When claims of racial bias are made without justification, reasonable persons have to wonder if they are also motivated by a desired to engage in a very public form of self-promotion (for the benefit of the trial lawyer, not the accused). In such cases the accused is reduced to a prop. In other cases, lawyers have actually "bonded" in some way with their clients. In one case in North Carolina, a death row inmate professed his love for one of his attorneys shortly before his execution. If arguments for a condemned murderer become too personal or failure to save a client more heartbreaking than usual, its possible that an attorney got too close to a client or involved in a case.

Now that states such as Texas have executed many of the offenders who were more violent, had cases that were more easily proven or those that were less defendable, it should come as no surprise that a number of cases have been rebuked or reversed because of some technicality. Should that encourage doubts in persons who support executions or encourage persons who oppose capital punishment to become more vocal? I don’t think so.

I think we should encourage the courts to focus on making quality decisions and enforcing the will of juries. Implementing and abiding known best practices actually works in everyone’s best interests. If some of us know enough to complain about the judicial system, we should challenge ourselves to propose tangible and reasonable solutions that can be implemented by sensible people. We shouldn't whine or encourage whining. We certainly shouldn’t limit ourselves to a defense attorney’s definition of the word “fair” when it comes to capital punishment. Such a thing probably won’t happen in Texas. Some prosecutors could argue at length that those on death row, even in Texas, aren’t any closer to dying than the average citizen. Especially in states like California or New York.

One thing is for sure, for as long as the courts tolerate frivolous claims, frivolous claims will be made. Part of determining the merit of these claims (specious or real) is hearing them in court. So don’t hold your breath waiting for things to change. When our courts or advocates for the condemned go “above and beyond the call of duty, to circumvent the will of a jury”, I think it should be done sparingly and with care (within the limits of the law). If problems with individual cases exist, they should be addressed one by one with quality arguments or evidence, not personal attacks or supposition. Just because a court affirms a sentence or a claim is determined to be unverified or an error is determined to be harmless, this doesn’t mean that the defense is entitled to retry case in the media. If we are not going to abide the will of our juries and enforce the sanctions they recommend, why do we have courts or laws? Isn’t that just another form of lawlessness (with a false perception of due process)?


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/national/05texas.html?hp&ex=1102309200&en=cb3c23993931bdaa&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Charles Walker's execution stayed.

Charles Walker's execution date was stayed on December 2nd, 2004.

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/deathpenalty/walker_chronology.htm
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1895086p-8230821c.html



Walker has at least two convictions in his record, one for the first-degree murder and another for conspiracy to commit murder of Elmon Tito Davidson, Jr. He was in disciplinary segregation (10/16/2004) at Central Prison in Raleigh.

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0420511&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2


On 12 August 1992, Walker, Sabrina Wilson, Antonio Wrenn, Pamela Haizlip, Rashar Darden, and Jesse (Jay) Thompson were at Nicki Summers' apartment, directly across from Haizlip's apartment. Summers and Wilson told Walker and Haizlip that Davidson attempted to take money and drugs from Haizlip's apartment the preceding night. Walker told Haizlip to lure Davidson into her apartment and keep him there. Thereafter, Walker, Darden, and Thompson entered Haizlip's apartment through the back door and found Davidson sitting on the couch. As they entered, Walker said that they were going to kill Davidson. Walker and Darden were armed with pistols, and Walker told Haizlip to leave.

Walker and Darden then pulled their guns, pointed them at Davidson, and made him sit down on the floor. Thompson tied Davidson's hands with duct tape and radio wire. Walker talked to Davidson; then Davidson's mouth was taped, and his feet were tied with rope or string. Walker hit Davidson on his kneecaps at least three times with a hammer. Davidson's hands came loose and were then secured by handcuffs. Walker gave a .380-caliber pistol to Thompson and left the apartment. Davidson was laid on the floor. Thompson cut Davidson's throat three times and then shot him through a pillow in the little finger and in the arm. Darden also shot Davidson several times with a .22-caliber pistol. Afterwards, Darden left and talked with Walker at Summers' apartment. Darden told Walker, "He ain't dying." Walker then reentered Haizlip's apartment, took the gun from Thompson, and shot Davidson in the neck. After the shooting and when Davidson ceased to move, Walker left the apartment.

North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=1996%5Csupreme0510%5C&invol=walker

Fourth Circuit Court Opinion
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0311.U.pdf

Walker’s infraction record during his incarceration includes at least 94 infractions, which include:

FIGHT INVOLVING WEAPONS, SUBSTANCE POSSESSION, INVOLVEMENT W/GANG OR STG, ATTEMPT CLASS A OFFENSE, WEAPON POSSESSION, PROVOKE ASSAULT, HIGH RISK ACT, DAMAGE STATE/ANOTHERS PROPERTY, UNWANTED COMMUNICATE W/VICTIMS, ATTEMPT CLASS B OFFENSE, MISUSE MEDICINE, PROFANE LANGUAGE, DISOBEY ORDER, FIGHTING, OFFER/ACCEPT BRIBE ANOTHER, VERBAL THREAT, THEFT OF PROPERTY, BARTER/TRADE/LOAN MONEY, MISUSE/UNAUTH-USE PHONE/MAIL, THREATEN TO HARM/INJURE STAFF, ATTEMPT CLASS C OFFENSE, NO THREAT CONTRABAND, ILLEGAL CLOTHING, PROPERTY TAMPERING, UNAUTHORIZED FUNDS, and ATTEMPT CLASS D OFFENSE.

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/raw1?DOCNUM=0420511&INMV9CF1=on&SEARCH=Search

Currently his attorneys claim that no physical evidence links Walker to the 1992 murder and that no body, blood or forensic evidence links their client to a crime. They also attack the credibility of witnesses who testified against him.

WRALTV: Attorneys: No Evidence To Link Client To Murder, http://www.wral.com/news/3939581/detail.html Viewed on the Internet November 22nd, 2004

Raleigh News and Observer, Former justices urge mercy, Andrea Weigl, November 24th, 2004.

http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1858025p-8192406c.html

Former N.C. chief justice James G. Exum Jr. and former justice J. Phil Carlton have asked Easley to grant a life sentence for Walker based on his history of paranoid schizophrenia..
Exum's letter said that Walker's mental illness made him unable to fully understand the consequences of rejecting a plea bargain.

In a letter to The News & Observer in 2003, Walker proclaimed his innocence and volunteered to take a lie-detector test, which his lawyer, Megerian said hasn't occurred. Walker has consistently denied any involvement in the crime.

Carlton and Exum both favor a moratorium on executions.

Walker qualified for the death penalty on two factors: his prior conviction for attempted murder and the violence of the killing. Davidson was shot, beaten and had his throat slit with a Ginzu knife. The jury further determined that Walker did not personally commit the killing, though it was convinced that he had prompted it.

In issuing the stay, Guilford County Superior Court Judge John Craig found the case unusual and wrote that "a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from the court's failure to consider these claims." Prosecutors and defense lawyers are crafting further arguments on issues related to the reliabitity of witness testimony and Walker's role in the cruelty of the murder which will be explored in more detail next year.

Retreat from Capital Punishment…

It should come as no surprise that advocates for condemned murderers respond to “red herrings” offered by the Associated Press that reference downward trends in the number of killers sentenced to death. 

The gross numbers by themselves don’t mean much. The missing part of the story is the reduction in the total number of truly capital crimes or those that lead up to such things. 

For instance, consider some other violent crimes that are often the precursors to aggravated murder (i.e. rape robbery). 

It’s not “new news” that violent crime in general is on a downward trend. So it might also be reasonable to expect that capital murders would also decline in number. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ 

 If fewer persons are sentenced to death there might also some reasonable explanations that death penaly foes or defense attorneys (some say these persons are the same) don't acknowledge. 

 How about prosecutorial discretion? Consider cases where the closest relatives of a victim don’t want to pursue an execution (many murder cases involve other immediate family members), or they (relatives of victims) don’t want to bear the burden of a prolonged appellate process. 

Why find fault in a reduced number of capital sentences? 

If for the sake of argument, jurists have “raised the bar” in terms of what they are willing to consider to be “reasonable evidence” when they decide on guilt or recommend a death sentence today, then that doesn’t mean that decisions made using a lower standard of proof are necessarily wrong. 

Trial lawyers aren't prevented from demanding clemency for condemned inmates in cases where known technologies or increased standards of proof (i.e. use of DNA or other forensic evidence/technologies) might prove possible innocence. 

Laws already require that such evidence be processed where it might free a convicted murderer. 

These increased burdens on prosecutors to prove a case should represent at least some comfort to persons who question guilt in individual cases. 

 So yes, the option of using some “prosecutorial discretion” might encourage some prosecutors to try fewer cases capitally. This often occurs where the evidence establishes guilt but does not justify an execution in some strong way. 

Since when is a decision based on efficacy, also biased or unfair? Isn’t this also a more efficient use of our courts and jurists? The bottom line on statistics is that, they "might mean more to us" if all murders were committed in the same manner, by the same kinds of offenders and the victims were all equal in every respect, but this is not so. 

Not all cases are equally strong in terms of proving the heinousness of the crime or their motivations. Each murderer represents a unique risk to themself and to others persons (or inmates and corrections staff). Imprisonment means something different for each convicted murderer. Each crime is in fact unique. 

This is why juries make the decisions when it is time to consider an occasional (but deserved) death sentence. In the end, the statistics are just statistics. 

So if polls show no appreciable changes regarding the overall support for capital punishment, that shouldn’t surprise anyone. If Americans continue to support the concept of capital punishment yet recommend the execution of fewer murderers, this should not be cause for concern either. 

Especially, if Americans are being more careful in recommending just who, gets executed. 

Yes, occasional wrongful convictions should make us all more careful and demanding when it comes to meting out death sentences. Few persons acknowledge the fact that in the majority of cases where a supposedly wrongfully convicted murderer was released, that strong evidence indicating guilt usually still exists. 

This is a far cry from the “actual innocence” standard that death penalty foes would encourage persons to believe when a rare case is retried, or results in a acquittal, gets reversed, remanded or an error is found. If anything this proves how reluctant the courts are to follow up with an execution when a case against a condemned murderer is in fact, a weak one. 

 Concluding that the results of local elections reflect a change how the public views capital punishment would be short sighted too. America just re-elected an ex-Texas Governor to the presidency. He is a man with a strong background indicating support for capital punishment, in case no one noticed. 

 If some of us seem to take occasional (and public) joy in a death sentence that should be discouraged. Death sentences mean that the system has failed a victim by preventing a brutal murder. 

Make no mistake about it; murderers on death row are not to be confused with being victims. “Premeditated or 1st degree murder” means they had choices and did wrong. 

It's also worth mentioning that the effectiveness of counsel is considered for every condemned murderer as a part of normal procedure not happenstance. 

 If evidence is wrongfully withheld it should be considered in our courts. If an occasional or rare case demonstrates that these things have happened in the past, it also demonstrates that the courts threw the verdicts out when the circumstances called for it. 

The appellate process is there to root out all such errors and validate prior decisions in the courts. Yet some only find fault in the process when it actually works. Death penalty foes even find fault in our leaders when they occasionally commute or overrule a death sentence. 

North Carolina’s Governor has commuted two condemned murderers sentences to life without parole. This demonstrates that compassion and leniency can be argued for on his watch. If lawyers are going to find fault with individual decisions the Governnor has made they had better substantiate such things with evidence, testimony, logic and facts, not supposition or statistics (or other weak arguments and whining). 

 So legislatively speaking, if the polls indicate that North Carolinians still overwhelmingly support capital punishment and from an evidentiary standpoint, we know that all of the murderers who have been executed were in fact guilty, why should we seek a moratorium on executions? Certainly not just because many advocates for death row inmates object to all executions! 

It makes no matter to them how heinous the crime or dangerous the murderer. Many of those who advocate for condemned murderers have a primary obligation to their clients and/or are paid to object to executions. So, when these persons voice their objections to the occasional and deserved execution we should consider just whom (or what) they are advocating for. Shouldn't we?!

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1884679p-8213758c.html