Words Left Unspoken

Category Archives: death penalty

Words Left Unspoken

Posted on by 2

Professor Lawrence C. Marshall

On Sunday afternoon, October 14, I participated in a public forum at Santa Rosa’s Shomrei Torah Synagogue. The focus was on two propositions that will appear on California’s November ballot. Proposition 34, if passed, will replace California’s death penalty with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Proposition 36 would amend the Three Strikes and You’re Out law by requiring that the third strike is a serious or violent felony.

 

I was invited to support No on Prop 36, as I believe that the Three Strikes and You’re Out law should not be amended. Defense attorney and ACLU of Northern California board member Steve Fabian represented Yes on Prop 36. Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation argued against Prop 34. The argument to overturn the death penalty was represented by Stanford University Professor and legal clinic Director Lawrence C. Marshall. Congregation Shomrei Torah Rabbi George Gittleman concluded the program with reflections on the death penalty in Judaism.

 

Overall it was an educational and informative forum that was well attended by an enthusiastic audience. However, the incident that stood out the most was not witnessed by the audience as it occurred after the forum was concluded.

 

Throughout the years I have witnessed numerous interactions between crime victims and those who advocate on behalf of death row inmates. These criminal apologists make impassioned, and often times very compelling arguments on behalf of remorseless killers or other serious and violent criminals; yet they fail to look me in the eye, rarely shake my hand and never reference the circumstances that have brought me to the podium.

 

Proposition 36 was presented first. Mr. Fabian made his case for ten minutes and then I made mine. We were each given a five minute rebuttal and then took questions from the audience. Both sides were given equal weight and I hope that I changed some minds toward my position.

 

The same format was followed by the Prop 34 discussion. In his opening statement, with obvious emotion and in the throes of passion Professor Marshall said that life sentences give society “every bit of protection” it could ask for without risking “the cost of executing innocent people.”  This despite the fact that Governor Brown just signed Senate Bill 9, which can overturn prison sentences of life without parole for 309 convicted killers. He also seems unaware that Governor Brown, a death penalty opponent, recently said that, “There are no innocent inmates on California’s death row”. At one point in his opening, Professor Marshall even referenced my commentary that, “You can’t blame 3-strikes for racial disparities, because they exist throughout the criminal justice system.”

 

I don’t want to minimize Mr. Scheidegger’s opposition to Prop 34 because it was eloquent, strong, and based upon facts, but this about things that weren’t said, not things that were said.

 

During his rebuttal Professor Marshall made an impassioned plea for death row inmates when he said, “They are us, they’re our children. We are a community.” He obviously felt very differently about me because, although he was sitting a mere three feet away from me he didn’t look me in the eye, didn’t shake my hand and didn’t acknowledge the loss of my child at the hands of one of “his” children. In fact, as soon as the Rabbi had finished his remarks at the end of the program Professor Marshall bolted to the back of the room in what seemed to me a desperate attempt to avoid meeting me.

 

I know that death penalty opponents don’t like people like me. I remind them of the heinous nature of their constituency: cop killers, baby killers, serial killers, and mass murderers. I represent a truth that they would rather deny. After all, how can somebody evoke the humanity and brotherhood of a blood thirsty psychopath when the fruit of their murderous intent is sitting but a few feet away?

 

If Professor Marshall has empathy then it is misplaced.  How can he advocate society’s inhumanity to death row inmates without first acknowledging the impact of the heinous crimes that death row inmates commit, and the impact upon families, friends, and the community at large?

 

Personally, I believe that his gesture at the Temple speaks more to Prop 34 and Prop 36 than any of the formal presentations. Too bad nobody noticed it but me.

Posted in death penalty, Prop 34, Prop 36 | Tagged | 2 Comments on Words Left Unspoken

Death Penalty Case Study: Charles Ng

Posted on by

Serial Killer Charles NG

Charles Ng is one of California’s most notorious serial killers. After being thrown out of the Marines for theft, Ng partnered with Leonard Lake in an extended plot of kidnap, rape, torture and murder. The crimes took place at Lake’s remote cabin in Calaveras County. The crimes came to light in 1985. Investigators later recovered the bodies of seven men, three women, two baby boys, and 45 pounds of bone fragments from the site. Investigators also found, in a bunker, a large cache of weapons and videotapes that Ng had made of some of the murders.

 

Lake committed suicide as police closed in. Ng fled to Canada but was extradited and convicted in 1999 of multiple counts of murder.

 

On November 6, please vote no on Prop 34 if you live in California.

Posted in death penalty, Prop 34 | Tagged | Leave a reply

Vote NO on Prop 34: Judge Changes False and Misleading Statements by Prop 34 Proponents

Posted on by

California killers Clarence Ray Allen, Richard Allen Davis, Richard Ramirez, Scott Peterson

Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully, a statewide Co-Chair of Californians for Justice and Public Safety – No on 34 – today issued the following statement following the decision by Sacramento Superior Court Justice Timothy Frawley to change false and misleading statements made by Proposition 34 proponents in official ballot arguments as part of their campaign to eliminate California’s death penalty.  Nearly every major public safety organization in the state opposes Prop 34 because it will embolden criminals and endanger California.

 

“We appreciate Judge Frawley’s thoughtful decision, which upholds our position that the Proponents of Prop 34 are waging a deceptive campaign in an effort to eliminate the Death Penalty.

 

Convincing a Judge to change ballot statements is an extraordinary action.  Judge Frawley agreed with us that Prop 34 proponents’ attempt to suggest that the measure’s $100 million appropriation was a result of alleged savings is false.  He rightly acknowledged that, if Prop 34 passes, $100 million will be taken from the State General fund, regardless of whether or not any money is actually saved. There were other assertions by the proponents in their ballot arguments that the judge labeled as ‘hyperbole” or “opinion’.  Translation – their assertions are exaggerated claims or opinions.

 

California voters deserve better. Consumers must get accurate and honest disclosure of what is contained in the products they buy, or District Attorneys can prosecute the manufacturers for consumer fraud.   Said another way, they can be prosecuted for false advertising and unfair business practices.

 

Sadly, there are no standards for honesty and accuracy for special interests and political campaigns.   If we did, Prop 34 proponents and those who have long sought to eliminate the death penalty wouldn’t get to use hyperbole or be allowed to mislead by exaggeration.  It should be noted that Prop 34 supporters did not challenge a single statement by our side.  That’s because we stick to the facts and respect voters who have consistently and overwhelmingly affirmed the Death Penalty as a just sentence in cases where a murder has been committed with special and horrific circumstances. Never, in the arguments made by those who support repealing the death penalty do you hear them talk about the victims of the killers they seek to save.

 

Well that stops today. Of course the murdered victims cannot speak, but there are victims who can.  They are the families of murdered victims that lost a loved one at the hands of a cold-blooded killer.  Our campaign will give them a voice to speak out about public safety. And that’s what is important…public safety.  Justice…the right of Californians to live in a safe community.  Today is the first defeat for the Proposition 34 campaign.  The next one will be on Election Day, when voters reject the hyperbole and opinion and stand up for California by voting No on 34.”

Posted in death penalty, Prop 34 | Tagged | Leave a reply

The UN-SAFE Act

Posted on by 1 Comment

Polly’s killer has been on death row since 1996. This November, California voters will be asked to overturn his sentence and the death sentences of 723 other serial killers, baby killers, cop killers and mass murderers. A proposition called the Savings, Accountability, Full Enforcement (SAFE) Act, which will appear on California’s ballot, will retroactively outlaw the death penalty in favor life without the possibility of parole. Abolitionists, led by the ACLU, claim that we should abolish the death penalty because it’s broken. They use the administrative bottlenecks that they created as justification for eliminating the death penalty. Now they believe that voters will be fooled into approving an initiative that will reward evil scum under the guise of alleged cost saving.   

If the death penalty is broken, mend it, don’t end it. Adopt a single drug for executions. Several other states, including Ohio, Washington, and Arizona use a constitutionally valid single drug for executions. Since 2009, Ohio has conducted 14 executions using a single drug method. Executions in California have been delayed because death penalty opponents endlessly file appeals, claiming the current 3-drug method is unconstitutional because it may be “cruel and unusual.” The final ten minutes of a remorseless killer’s life are not legitimate grounds to delay the death penalty.

Several legislative and constitutional efforts can be adopted to fix the appeals process. Retired California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George endorsed a Constitutional Amendment to allow Appeals Courts to hear appeals thereby significantly reducing costs and delays. Modify and limit the time for filing certain types of appeals. Require defense attorneys to take appeals and thereby reduce delays. Currently, California has more than 171,000 practicing attorneys, yet only about 100 are qualified to represent automatic appeals.

Unfortunately, elected officials who advocate on behalf of death row inmates never allow those efforts to see the light of day. On April 17 I testified before the Senate Public Safety Committee on two bills that would have streamlined the process. Senate Bill 1514 would have eliminated the automatic appeal in cases, like Polly’s, where guilt was never in doubt. It was defeated by a straight party vote. Senate Constitutional Amendment 20 (SCA 20) would have amended the California Constitution so that appeals of death penalty cases would go to the California Court of Appeals instead of the California Supreme Court. The 105 Appeals Court justices would be able to rule on many more death penalty appeals than the 7 Supreme Court justices thereby greatly easing the backlog. SCA 20 was defeated because it would cost too much.

Politicians who would tax our inner organs in an effort to save a population of salamanders become fiscal conservatives when it comes to the death penalty. There is no objective data that elimination of the death penalty will save money. The studies relied on by death penalty opponents are misleading and inflated and were either written by them or rely on data collected by them. The only unbiased study to determine the true costs was done by the RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan organization which operates independent of political pressures. The RAND Corporation found there was no objective data available to give a true estimate of the costs of the death penalty.

The death penalty is a law that is supported by a majority of Californians. The law of the land and the will of the people have been subverted by administrative shenanigans, frivolous appeals, endless delays and moral bankruptcy. The very individuals and organizations who have created a broken system in California now want the voters to legitimize their misanthropic actions. California’s so called SAFE Act mocks our system of crime and punishment as it attempts to give our very worst criminals the very thing that they denied their victims: to right to live their lives in safety and die in peace.

Posted in death penalty, legislation | Tagged | %

Death of Democracy – or at least a minor glitch!

Posted on by
On Tuesday, April 18, I testified before the California Senate Public Safety Committee on two pieces of legislation that would begin the process of fixing California’s broken death penalty. The committee is dominated by liberal Democrats and the author of the legislation is a Conservative Republican. However, we all agree that the system is broken and that if executions, which are the law of the land and are supported by a majority of the population, are to proceed, certain legislative and administrative adjustments must be made. Senate Bill 1514, which was quickly defeated, would have eliminated the automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court for any death row inmate whose guilt was known and unquestioned. The following represents my testimony on behalf of Senate Constitutional Amendment 20, which would have diverted automatic appeals from the California Supreme Court, which has 7 jurists, to the California Court of Appeals, which has more than 100 jurists.

“This isn’t the first time I’ve sat here and testified on behalf of opportunities to fix the death penalty. I’ve testified on behalf of some of Senator Harmon’s bills and have at long last come to the conclusion that this committee has absolutely no intent of fulfilling the law of the land. They have absolutely no intent of doing anything more than protecting the most heinous individuals amongst us.  You people don’t care about my daughter; you people don’t care about any of the victims. You are interested in subverting the law of the land.”

“I think that you should be ashamed for the stand that you are taking here today. There is no way that the death penalty will ever be fixed, and we all agree that it is a broken system, as long as you turn your back on every common sense solution that’s put forth.  Yes indeed, it is about not having enough lawyers, but you know what? We have about 170,000 practicing lawyers in California and only 100 of them are qualified to hear death penalty appeals?”

“Yes, we have a problem with the court system. The Supreme Court cannot hear all of these cases. They have hundreds of cases on their dockets and they can only hear a few every year. You need to stand up and do something real for the people of California. Support the will of the people; support the law of the land. Thank you for your time.”

Committee Chairperson Loni Hancock said, “Thank you for your time. We do have committee rules that indicate that we don’t make attacks on members of the committee or people who are appearing as witnesses. Let me point out that it would help some of this argument if there were tax money to pay $184-million per year which is what it would cost on professional estimates to actually provide constitutional protection.”

And how much does it cost to let this go on year after year after year? How much does it cost to house Richard Allen Davis on death row…”

This is when my microphone was cut off, democracy was denied and a tax and spend liberal State Senator revealed that she was instead a fiscal conservative.
Posted in death penalty, legislation | Tagged | Leave a reply

What I Know About the Death Penalty: Part 1

Posted on by
I am unapologetic about my support of the death penalty because I do not believe that a majority opinion or the law of the land in 37-states and the Federal government requires apology of defense. Unfortunately, a public relations campaign waged by death penalty abolitionists has found such support in media circles that many people believe that our death rows are filled with innocent men and women who are denied due process as they are being led to the slaughter.

Since the days of Perry Mason, television has fed the public a constant diet of citizens accused and convicted of capital murders that they did not commit. Currently, the plethora of CSI series would have us believe that forensic evidence miraculously and regularly exonerates innocents as they rot in prison cells.

The wrongful accusation, conviction, imprisonment and execution of innocents is a staple of The Good Wife on CBS, which recently featured Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck and the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. The elegance of that particular case is that it is impossible to prove if Willingham truly was innocent as the Good Wife and Scheck claim, or was the remorseless arsonist who was executed in 2003 for torching his three young daughters in 1991. The point is that on these television programs forensics are always definitive, defense lawyers are never wrong, and innocent people are convicted, imprisoned and executed.

Of course, print media is complicit as well. Convicted killer Roger Coleman made the cover of Time Magazine on May 18, 1992 with the caption “This Man Might Be Innocent: This Man Is Due To Die”. Fourteen years after being executed DNA evidence proved that Coleman was guilty of murdering his sister-in-law.

The June 12, 2000 cover of Newsweek Magazine featured death row inmate Ricky McGinn. Again, the suggestion was that an innocent man was about to be executed. McGinn stated that DNA testing would prove that he didn’t rape and murder his 12-year-old step-daughter. Under intense media pressure Texas Governor George Bush ordered a 30-day reprieve. When DNA testing proved that McGinn was guilty beyond any doubt he was finally executed.

Wouldn’t you be surprised to learn then, that at the end of 2009 there were 1,613,740 prisoners under state and federal jurisdiction, yet less the total number of DNA exonerations for any kind of felony is less than 300? To date, despite years of parading remorseless killers as innocent victims the abolitionists and other death row apologists cannot definitively demonstrate that an innocent man has been executed.

The ultimate irony is that death penalty abolitionists crave the execution of an innocent man so that their indignation can run amok, while those who favor the death penalty pray that an innocent is never executed so that the fragile system of ultimate justice can be preserved.
Posted in death penalty | Tagged | Leave a reply

Connect with the Klaas family and continue the good work

Translate »