From Coalition Member Amy Luftig:
Hello! It is with great excitement that I report that BOTH of our Task Force Study Bills (HB 1518 and SB 5786) have **passed out of their respective Judiciary Committees in both Houses!** In both houses, all Democrats voted yes and all Republicans voted no.
Unfortunately, neither of the mental illness bills will be voted on this year (committee cutoff is tomorrow). In the Senate, this is because we did not have the votes to pass it (all Repubilcans and Senator Hargrove (D-24) did not support.) We DO believe that we had the votes to pass it in the House Committee. However, it is our understanding that leadership in the House did not want this bill to move this year. Such is way of politics. We are well-poised to introduce it again next year (and we will). Do not despair - remember that it takes about 5 years for bills like this to pass. Much work and education needs to be done, member by member. We'll get this one done.
NEXT STEP FOR THE TASK FORCE BILLS:THESE BILLS MUST BE HEARD AND VOTED OUT OF THE SENATE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE/HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE by MONDAY, MARCH 5TH.
Please call AND email the Chairs of these Committees and Urge a Heairng and a Vote by Monday. Chair of Senate Ways and Means: Senator Margarita Prentice. prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov. 360-786- 7616. (Bill Number: 5786) Chair of House Appropriations: Rep. Helen Sommers. sommers.helen@leg.wa.gov. 360-786-7814.(Bill Number: HB 1518). It is very important that we call the chairs of these committees (even if you already have!)
Here are a couple of quick talking points: *Very significant questions about the application in the death penalty in Washington were raised by the Washington Supreme Court in the July 2006 Washington Davya Cross Case. Four dissenting justices said that the death penalty in Washington was as random as lightning striking -- defying rational explanation. * It is the responsibility of the legislature to pass laws and ensure that they are applied fairly. * This bill has a small fiscal note - $122,000 -- but could have an enormous positive fiscal impact in terms of ensuring that the death penalty does not unecessarily waste taxpayer dollars.
GOOD LUCK AND PLEASE CALL SOON!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
AP Story on Hearings in the House
By Associated Press
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Bill Babbitt held up photos of his decorated Vietnam War veteran brother Wednesday as he asked lawmakers to pass a bill that would allow defendants to avoid the death penalty by showing they were severely mentally impaired.Babbitt's brother Manny was executed in California in 1999 for the 1980 murder of 78-year-old Leah Schendel. Babbitt was sentenced to death for breaking into Schendel's apartment and beating her. She died of a heart attack.Babbitt said his brother, who received a Purple Heart in prison for wounds suffered at the siege of Khe Sanh, suffered from mental illness and had spent time in a mental hospital."I supported the death penalty until 1980 when it came knocking on my door," Bill Babbitt, who traveled from Elk Grove, Calif., told members of the House Judiciary Committee. "My brother went to Vietnam and came back severely mentally ill, he never would have killed without the war wounds that tormented him."
The bill would bar the state from executing mentally ill defendants whose appreciation for their acts is "significantly impaired." Mentally retarded defendants already are barred from execution. Under the measure "severe mental disorder" does not include mental illness or defects due to alcohol or drug abuse, or repeated criminal conduct.Rep. Brendan Williams, D-Olympia and the bill's sponsor, said that the bill would make a "necessary change to the law.""If someone lacks the full capacity to make the conscious choice to do wrong, I believe that in a just society, they should not be subjected to the retribution of the death penalty."Under the measure, the defendant must prove that he does indeed have a severe mental disorder, and if a judge or jury agrees, the defendant must be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
But Tom McBride, executive secretary of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said that the definition is too broad, and that if the bill passes as worded, "It's close to an effective repeal of the death penalty."Won't the average juror say, 'of course there's something wrong with this person because a normal person doesn't do that?"' he asked. "This is the broadest definition you could pick. It's going to be wide open."The committee also heard testimony on another measure sponsored by Williams that would put a moratorium on executions until July 2008 - though none are expected by then - while a task force studies the application of the death penalty in Washington.
The task force bills in the House and Senate call for a 14-member commission to review the application of the death penalty, including whether race, gender or economic status play roles in who gets it, and whether prosecutors uniformly charge aggravated first-degree murder, the only crime that can carry the death penalty in this state. The proposed commission would also review the costs associated with trials and appeals, and whether the death penalty is applied randomly, as four dissenting state Supreme Court justices have said.Williams said it's important for the Legislature to take up the death penalty issue, since the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's capital punishment law 5-4 last year and invited lawmakers to reconsider the death penalty's fairness in light of King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng's decision in 2003 to spare the life of the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway. Ridgway pleaded guilty to killing 48 women, and helped authorities find remains, in exchange for life in prison without release."There is no other branch of government to whom we can in turn delegate this task to," Williams said. "The buck stops here."
The appointment of such a commission was called for by the state bar association's death penalty subcommittee following an 18-month study that concluded last December.The subcommittee's report raised questions about the wisdom of continuing to seek execution, given the exorbitant costs of such trials and the overwhelming likelihood of reversal by appeals courts. The state has spent millions of dollars pursuing death in 79 cases over the last 25 years, with four executions to show for it. Three of the convicts executed had waived their appeals and volunteered to be killed.
McBride said the state doesn't need another study on the death penalty.He said the main problem with the task force proposal is that it "avoids the moral and ethical question about the death penalty."He said the recent Supreme Court ruling said that the moral question was up to the Legislature."If you want to debate the moral question, we would welcome that," he said. "Because quite frankly prosecutors are not unanimous on that issue. The problem with this study is it avoids the moral question.""It's disappointing to me that this is more of the same of what we've done for 25 years," he said. "Really what we need to talk about is, is it moral to impose the death penalty or not?"Last month, Maleng announced he would seek the death penalty in the slaying of a soldier's family, the first case in which he has sought the death penalty since Ridgway.The Senate Judiciary Committee also heard public testimony on the bills Wednesday.Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor and chairwoman of the House committee, said she wasn't certain sure that either measure would have the votes to pass her committee.
Friday, February 9, 2007
A National Legislative Update
From our Friends at Capital Defense Weekly:
Theme of the week? Politics & the death penalty
Some weeks there are there are themes or trends that seem to develop or are highlighted. This week, amidst what appears to be a relatively slow week for new appellate case law, it seems that seems to be politics and the death penalty.
For example a “state lawmaker filed a bill Thursday that would protect doctors who take part in executions, joining a debate that has effectively shut down capital punishment in North Carolina. The bill filed by state Sen. Phil Berger came a day after a longtime death penalty opponent in the chamber asked for a moratorium while the lethal injection process is studied.” Press accounts here. ODPI is keeping up with developments, & People of Faith Against the Death Penalty is helping advocatea for many of those change in the Tar Heel state.
In the midwest, as DPIC notes, “Missouri Rep. Bill Deeken, a Republican death penalty proponent, has introduced legislation that would halt executions in the state until 2011 and would create a capital punishment commission to examine the fairness and accuracy of Missouri’s death penalty. Deeken stated that his motivation for the bill came after realizing that the state’s death penalty has not been implemented fairly in all cases and it does not adequately prevent wrongful convictions. He noted, ‘ am not against the death penalty. But what I am for is to make sure that any person that is sentenced to death is the right person. If I was on a jury, and I found out that I had put someone to death that was not guilty, it would bother me for the rest of my life’.”
Further west, “[f]or the first time in nearly two decades, members of the Nebraska’s unicameral legislature will have an opportunity to debate a bill that would repeal the state’s death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life without parole and an order of restitution. Members of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the bill, noting that their colleagues in the full senate should have a chance to debate the measure. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Ernie Chambers, introduced similar measure in 1979 that won approval by the legislature, but was vetoed by then-Governor Charles Thorne.” DPIC, from which the quote is taken, has more.
In Colorado, the AP notes a key committee vote of 7-4 to abolish the death penalty in Colorado and use the money from death penalty cases to try to solve cold case files.
In Montana, press accounts note, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from proponents of a billl, that would make life in prison without parole the “the most severe punishment available to prosecutors and juries in the state.”
Theme of the week? Politics & the death penalty
Some weeks there are there are themes or trends that seem to develop or are highlighted. This week, amidst what appears to be a relatively slow week for new appellate case law, it seems that seems to be politics and the death penalty.
For example a “state lawmaker filed a bill Thursday that would protect doctors who take part in executions, joining a debate that has effectively shut down capital punishment in North Carolina. The bill filed by state Sen. Phil Berger came a day after a longtime death penalty opponent in the chamber asked for a moratorium while the lethal injection process is studied.” Press accounts here. ODPI is keeping up with developments, & People of Faith Against the Death Penalty is helping advocatea for many of those change in the Tar Heel state.
In the midwest, as DPIC notes, “Missouri Rep. Bill Deeken, a Republican death penalty proponent, has introduced legislation that would halt executions in the state until 2011 and would create a capital punishment commission to examine the fairness and accuracy of Missouri’s death penalty. Deeken stated that his motivation for the bill came after realizing that the state’s death penalty has not been implemented fairly in all cases and it does not adequately prevent wrongful convictions. He noted, ‘ am not against the death penalty. But what I am for is to make sure that any person that is sentenced to death is the right person. If I was on a jury, and I found out that I had put someone to death that was not guilty, it would bother me for the rest of my life’.”
Further west, “[f]or the first time in nearly two decades, members of the Nebraska’s unicameral legislature will have an opportunity to debate a bill that would repeal the state’s death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life without parole and an order of restitution. Members of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the bill, noting that their colleagues in the full senate should have a chance to debate the measure. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Ernie Chambers, introduced similar measure in 1979 that won approval by the legislature, but was vetoed by then-Governor Charles Thorne.” DPIC, from which the quote is taken, has more.
In Colorado, the AP notes a key committee vote of 7-4 to abolish the death penalty in Colorado and use the money from death penalty cases to try to solve cold case files.
In Montana, press accounts note, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from proponents of a billl, that would make life in prison without parole the “the most severe punishment available to prosecutors and juries in the state.”
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Before It's Too Late....
This is Bill Babbitt. He is holding a picture of his brother, Manny.
Bill Babbitt was present at San Quentin prison when at one minute after midnight on May 4th, 1999 the state of California executed his brother, Manny Babbitt.
Manny, the recipient of a Purple Heart for his service in Vietnam, was a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. He had been tried and convicted for the murder of an elderly woman who had died of a heart attack after a break-in and beating.
When Bill realized that his brother could possibly be involved in the woman’s death, he contacted the police and helped them arrest his brother. In return, the police promised Bill that Manny would receive the psychological help that he needed and that they would help see that Manny would not receive the death penalty. Bill felt certain that when confronted with the reality of Manny’s mental illness, the justice system would hand down a fair sentence but avoid death. He was wrong.
Manny was sentenced to death and then executed, despite his severe mental illness and despite the promises made to Bill.
A death sentence for someone like Manny is exactly what we seek to prevent by HB 1707 and SB 5787. Bill Babbitt is travelling from California to Olympia to tell his and his brother's story. Please join us on February 14th. We need to act now, before its too late for someone else's brother.
HEARING DATES!!
Our bills are set for hearings on February 14th at 1:30 in the House and 3:30 in the Senate. The exact location will be posted here, as soon as we get it.
Please come to the hearings, bring a friend (or two or three), and let's make democracy happen.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
March 5th Annual Award Dinner
Featuring Jon Langford performing "The Executioner's Last Songs."
March 5 at 7 pm at the Triple Door.
This is going to be great. Get your tickets at: http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/AbolitionDayDinner.htm
Feb. 14th Hearings on Our Bills!!!
Our bills are getting committe hearings!! They will (very likely) be heard on the afternoon of February 14. We need you to come out in support.
Watch this blog for more news, or you can go to: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/search.aspx?term=death+penalty&year=2007
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Why Severely Mentally Ill Persons Should be Exempt from the Death Penalty
Those who support the death penalty promise us that it is reserved for the "worst of the worst."
The US Supreme Court has held that juveniles (anyone under 18) and those suffering from mental retardation are by defintion never the worst of the worst. For that reason, they can never face the death penalty.
In Atkins, the US Supreme Court said: Because of their impairments, however, by definition [the mentally retarded] have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. There is no evidence that they are more likely to engage in criminal conduct than others, but there is abundant evidence that they often act on impulse rather than pursuant to a premeditated plan, and that in group settings they are followers rather than leaders. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish.
In Simmons, the Court added: "The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult. Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed. "
As a result, retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of immaturity or intellectual limitations.
These same arguments apply with greater force to persons who are sevrely mentally ill. The relative culpability of individuals whose ability to know right from wrong or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law is substantially imparied is, by defintion, less than what is required for the "worst of the worst."
If we are to continue with the death penalty in this state, we must prohibit the execution of the severely mentally ill and we must do so, now. As former Chief Justice Warren said, at stake here is "nothing less than the dignity of man."
The US Supreme Court has held that juveniles (anyone under 18) and those suffering from mental retardation are by defintion never the worst of the worst. For that reason, they can never face the death penalty.
In Atkins, the US Supreme Court said: Because of their impairments, however, by definition [the mentally retarded] have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. There is no evidence that they are more likely to engage in criminal conduct than others, but there is abundant evidence that they often act on impulse rather than pursuant to a premeditated plan, and that in group settings they are followers rather than leaders. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish.
In Simmons, the Court added: "The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult. Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed. "
As a result, retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of immaturity or intellectual limitations.
These same arguments apply with greater force to persons who are sevrely mentally ill. The relative culpability of individuals whose ability to know right from wrong or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law is substantially imparied is, by defintion, less than what is required for the "worst of the worst."
If we are to continue with the death penalty in this state, we must prohibit the execution of the severely mentally ill and we must do so, now. As former Chief Justice Warren said, at stake here is "nothing less than the dignity of man."
Friday, February 2, 2007
Before its too late...
This is Wanda Jean Allen. Wanda Jean was executed in January 2001, after spending nearly 12 years on death row in Oklahoma for murdering her former girlfriend, Gloria Leathers and despite strong evidence that Wanda Jean was mentally retarded.
No evidence of Wanda's mental impairments was presented during her trial. In a 1991 affidavit, her attorney stated that it was not until after the trial that he learned when Wanda was 15 years-old her IQ had been measured at 69 and that the doctor who examined her had recommended a neurological assessment because she manifested symptoms of brain damage. The attorney stated, "I did not search for any medical or psychological records or seek expert assistance" for use at the trial.
A psychologist conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Wanda in 1995 and found "clear and convincing evidence of cognitive and sensory-motor deficits and brain dysfunction" possibly linked to an adolescent head injury. At the age of 12, Allen had been hit by a truck and knocked unconscious, and at 14 or 15 she had been stabbed in the left temple. He found "particularly significant hemisphere dysfunction" impairing "her comprehension, her ability to logically express herself, her ability to analyze cause and effect relationships." He also concluded that Allen was "more chronically vulnerable than others to becoming disorganized by everyday stresses-- and thus more vulnerable to a loss of control under stress."
Just one year later, the Supreme Court outlawed executions of mentally retarded individuals.
But, that was one year late for Wanda Jean's family. Let's pass a prohibition on executing the severely mentally ill before it's too late for someone else's daughter....
Free Movie!! NW Film Forum
NW Film Forum1515 12th Ave, Seattle WA 98122
Phone: (206)329-2629
FEB 24 Sat at 4pm
ITVS Community Cinema and Northwest Film Forum Present:
RACE TO EXECUTION
(Rachel Lyon & Jim Lopes, USA, 2006, DVD, 53 min.)
Sponsored by KBCS
Co-presented by KCTS, The City of Seattle Office for Civil Rights, The Central District Forum for Arts & Ideas, and the Langston Hughes African American Film Festival .
This compelling investigation of America's death penalty traces the fates of two Death Row inmates, revealing how race discrimination infects the capital punishment system. Neither for nor against the death penalty, RACE TO EXECUTION explores how the media's racially charged portrayal of victims and perpetrators is internalized by potential jurors and carried into the courtroom. Admission free with RSVP to mailto:rsvp@communitycinemaseattle.org?subject=rsvp_Twisted! or (800) 930-6060.
HB 1707 and pending cases
One question that comes up frequently during discussions regarding HB 1707 is: "what would happen with pending cases, either individuals facing trial or those on death row?"
The short answer is that HB 1707 would give those persons a chance to prove that they were severely mentally ill at the time of the crime. If a prosecutor agreed with the claim, the defendant would be sentenced to life in prison. If a prosecutor disagreed, then both the defense and the prosecution would present their respective evidence to a trier of fact (judge or jury) for a decision whether the defendant fell within the statute's narrow defintion. The same process applied after passage of the prohibition on executing persons who were "mentally retarded."
For example, the King County Prosecutor recently announced his decision to seek a death sentence for Connor Schierman, who is charged with four murders. If HB 1707 is passed, Prosecutor Maleng could reconsider his decision, but would not be required to do so under the new law. If Mr. Schierman claims that he was severely mentally ill and, as a result, was substantially imparied in his ability to know right from wrong or to control his actions, he could then file a motion asking for dismissal of the death penalty. A judge would then hear the evidence, giving both sides an opportunity to present their case. If the judge decided that Schierman was severely mentally ill, then the death penalty would be dismissed, although Schierman would still face four murder charges and four life sentences. If the judge disagreed, then Mr. Schierman could present his claim to his jury during the penalty phase, who would decide either life or death.
I should note that I do not have any personal knowledge, beyond what I have read in the newspapers, about Mr. Schierman. I do not know whether he is severely mentally ill. Instead, I am simply using Mr. Schierman's case to illustratae how HB 1707 would work, if passed.
In the end, HB 1707 gives both the prosecution and the defense an equal and fair opportunity to present their cases. However, if a judge or jury determines that a defendant facing a death sentence was, in fact, severely mentally ill at the time of the crime, the result is to preclude a death sentence.
The short answer is that HB 1707 would give those persons a chance to prove that they were severely mentally ill at the time of the crime. If a prosecutor agreed with the claim, the defendant would be sentenced to life in prison. If a prosecutor disagreed, then both the defense and the prosecution would present their respective evidence to a trier of fact (judge or jury) for a decision whether the defendant fell within the statute's narrow defintion. The same process applied after passage of the prohibition on executing persons who were "mentally retarded."
For example, the King County Prosecutor recently announced his decision to seek a death sentence for Connor Schierman, who is charged with four murders. If HB 1707 is passed, Prosecutor Maleng could reconsider his decision, but would not be required to do so under the new law. If Mr. Schierman claims that he was severely mentally ill and, as a result, was substantially imparied in his ability to know right from wrong or to control his actions, he could then file a motion asking for dismissal of the death penalty. A judge would then hear the evidence, giving both sides an opportunity to present their case. If the judge decided that Schierman was severely mentally ill, then the death penalty would be dismissed, although Schierman would still face four murder charges and four life sentences. If the judge disagreed, then Mr. Schierman could present his claim to his jury during the penalty phase, who would decide either life or death.
I should note that I do not have any personal knowledge, beyond what I have read in the newspapers, about Mr. Schierman. I do not know whether he is severely mentally ill. Instead, I am simply using Mr. Schierman's case to illustratae how HB 1707 would work, if passed.
In the end, HB 1707 gives both the prosecution and the defense an equal and fair opportunity to present their cases. However, if a judge or jury determines that a defendant facing a death sentence was, in fact, severely mentally ill at the time of the crime, the result is to preclude a death sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
