By GENE JOHNSON, The Associated Press, Thursday, February 1, 2007
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302020_deathpenalty01.html

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng's decision this week to seek the death penalty in the slaying of a soldier's family has renewed discussion about whether capital punishment is good policy for the state.

While lawmakers say there's no rush to abolish it, House and Senate bills introduced this session in Olympia would attempt to limit its use.

One would ban execution unless DNA evidence, a confession or other sophisticated technology proved guilt. Another, filed in the House on Wednesday, would allow defendants to avoid the death penalty by showing they were mentally impaired.

A third effort would put a moratorium on executions until July 2008 -- though no one appears in danger of being executed before then -- while a task force studies the application of the death penalty in Washington. The House version of the task force bill is set for a Judiciary Committee hearing Friday.

The topic has gained currency 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 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.

"That's an ongoing discussion that we need to have," said Rep. Chris Strow, a Republican from Clinton who sponsored the DNA bill. "The biggest utility for the death penalty in Washington state right now is for forcing a plea bargain. We already have a system that makes it virtually impossible to force anyone to go under the needle."

Maleng announced Tuesday that he would seek the death penalty for Conner Schierman, a 25-year-old maintenance worker accused of knifing to death the family of National Guard Sgt. Leonid Milkin in Kirkland last summer, then burning the home to conceal the crime. At the time, Milkin was serving in Iraq.

It's the first case in which Maleng has sought the death penalty since Ridgway.

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; whether prosecutors uniformly file aggravated first-degree murder charges, the only crime that can bring the death penalty; the costs associated with trials and appeals; and whether it is applied randomly, as the four dissenting Supreme Court justices determined.

The appointment of such a commission was called for by the state bar association's death penalty subcommittee after an 18- month study that concluded in 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 appeals and volunteered to be killed.

By Rachel La Corte, Associated Press Writer
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_xgr_death_penalty.html

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 · Last updated 7:12 p.m. PT

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- 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.

---

The death penalty task force bills are Senate Bill 5786 and House Bill 1518. The measures concerning mentally impaired defendants are Senate Bill 5787 and House Bill 1707.

---

On the Net: Legislature: http://www.leg.wa.gov

You may listen to the testimony regarding House Bills 1518 and 1518; aw well as Senate Bills 5787 and 1707.

These recordings Include testimony from several current and past members of the WCADP Steering Committee, WCADP members, and other noted abolitionists.

House Hearings, 14 February: http://www.tvw.org/search/siteSearch.cfm?keywords=House%20Judiciary

Senate Hearings, 14 February:  http://www.tvw.org/search/siteSearch.cfm?keywords=Senate%20Judiciary

Important:  Once you go to the web site(s) below, you must select the audio for Wednesday, 14 February to hear the correct testimony.

By Cindy Wooden Catholic News Service, 7 February 2007

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The death penalty "is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity," the Vatican said in a position paper.

The paper was prepared for the Feb. 1-3 World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris and was released Feb. 7 by the Vatican press office.

"The Holy See takes this occasion to welcome and affirm again its support for all initiatives aimed at defending the inherent and inviolable value of all human life from conception to natural death," it said.

Echoing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the paper recognized the obligation of governments to protect their citizens, but it also said that "today it truly is difficult to justify" using the death penalty when other means of protection, including life imprisonment for murderers, are possible.

Citing appeals made by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for clemency for people condemned to die, the paper said the Vatican supported international campaigns to proclaim a universal moratorium on the use of capital punishment and the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

It also noted concerns raised in many parts of the world over "recent executions," obviously referring to the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other former officials of Iraq.

"Consciences have been awakened by the need for a greater recognition of the inalienable dignity of human beings and by the universality and integrity of human rights, beginning with the right to life," it said.

The paper said every decision to use the death penalty carries "numerous risks," including "the danger of punishing innocent persons" and the possibility of "promoting violent forms of revenge rather than a true sense of social justice."

A capital execution, it said, is "a clear offense against the inviolability of human life" and can contribute to "a culture of violence and death."

"For Christians," the Vatican said, "it also shows contempt for the Gospel teaching on forgiveness."

While an execution "temporarily may alleviate an appetite for revenge," it said, taking the life of the criminal makes it impossible to fulfill the obligation of justice, which calls for penalties that punish and may help rehabilitate an offender.

Los Angeles Times, 3/27/07

WASHINGTON -- Margaret Chiara, a former U.S. Attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., appealed several times to the Justice Department against having to seek the federal death penalty. In hindsight, for her it was a risky business.

No prisoner has been executed in a Michigan case since 1938, but the Bush administration seemed determined to change that.

Indeed, under Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto R. Gonzales, far more federal defendants have been dispatched to death row than under the previous administration. And any prosecutors wishing to do otherwise often find themselves overruled.

Chiara was not the only one to run afoul of the administration's stance on the death penalty.

In San Francisco, U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan was ordered by Ashcroft to conduct a capital trial for a Californian charged with killing a man with a mailed, booby-trapped bomb. Ryan persuaded Ashcroft's successor, Gonzales, to drop the death charge; in February, the defendant, David Lin, was acquitted in federal court in San Jose.

In Phoenix, prosecutor Paul Charlton was told repeatedly, despite his resistance, to file capital murder in a case where the victim's body has never been recovered. The woman's remains are believed buried in an Arizona landfill, but the Justice Department refused Charlton's request to shoulder the cost -- up to $1 million -- to retrieve the corpse.

The three prosecutors are among eight U.S. attorneys terminated in 2006 in a housecleaning by the Justice Department. And while their hesitation over the death penalty was not cited as a reason for their dismissals, Washington officials have made it clear they have little patience for prosecutors who are not with the program.

The Justice Department under Ashcroft and Gonzales has demanded far more death-penalty cases than it did under the Clinton administration. Data from the Federal Death Penalty Information Center in Washington show that there have been 95 federal death-penalty trials in the six years under Ashcroft and Gonzales, compared with 55 during the eight years under Attorney General Janet Reno.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the center, said that when President Bush came to Washington in 2001, his administration seemed determined not only to toughen the federal death penalty statute but to seek it equitably around the nation -- including in states such as Michigan where laws forbid it.

As a result, he said, "you see a lot more (capital) cases going to trial, unlike what was happening before, where U.S. attorneys were given some leeway to settle cases or take plea bargains.''

Dieter said: "Bush certainly believes in the death penalty, Ashcroft was a fervent believer, and Gonzales was Bush's adviser in Texas, denying all those clemency requests.''

When Chiara was appointed to be the top prosecutor in Grand Rapids in November 2001, she told reporters that she was opposed to the death penalty. But, she added, her personal views would not affect her performance.

Nevertheless, said her predecessor, Mike Dettmer: "She did not pass the Bush loyalty test on her concerns over the death penalty,'' and "she caught a lot of flak for it.''

Two years into her term, she filed capital charges against Michael and Robert Ostrander -- brothers from Cadillac, Mich. -- in the slaying and robbery of an alleged fellow drug dealer. The decision to pursue the death penalty was made by Ashcroft after Chiara and a deputy, Phil Green, flew to Washington and attempted to convince him otherwise, Dettmer said.

Paul Mitchell, who represented one of the brothers, said the state law against execution in Michigan was bypassed when Washington made it a federal case based on a firearm being used in a drug-related offense.

Police said the brothers met another alleged drug dealer, Hansle Andrews, and invited him to go with them to buy drugs in Grand Rapids. Instead they drove to a remote area outside Cadillac, shot Andrews, robbed him and buried the body in a pre-dug grave. They were convicted of murder but were spared death, receiving life sentences instead.

In firing Chiara, the Justice Department did not mention the death penalty but did note that officials felt they had "no assurance that DOJ priorities/polices (were) being carried out'' in Grand Rapids.

In San Francisco, federal public defender Barry J. Portman said he wonders whether Ryan's hesitation to charge the death penalty might have hurt his standing with Washington too. He cited the Lin case and Ryan's ability to get Gonzales to reverse Ashcroft's decision to raise it to a capital level.

"Most defense attorneys felt Ryan was not eager to seek the death penalty,'' Portman said.

On Feb. 23 Lin was acquitted of mailing a robot dog containing a bomb that killed Patrick Hsu, 18, of San Jose.

Ryan was fired for a number of reasons, according to the Justice documents, including complaints that his office was the most fractured one in the country.

Charlton in Phoenix was let go for "repeated instances of insubordination, actions taken contrary to instructions, and actions taken that were clearly unauthorized.''

The documents also include a chain of e-mails from August 2006 in which Charlton was trying to get to Gonzales to persuade him that the death penalty was inappropriate for the case without the body.

On Aug. 16, Michael Elston in the deputy attorney general's office told him: "The AG has denied your invitation to speak further about the case. Please file the notice.''

Later that day, Charlton's office advised the federal court in Phoenix that it would seek death for Jose Rios Rico in the 2003 drug murder of Angela Pinkerton.

It was the second time that Charlton had tangled with superiors in Justice over whether to seek the death penalty.

Charlton also did not want to execute a Navajo, deferring to a long-standing informal policy based on the tribe's opposition to the death penalty. But Justice officials ordered him to seek a death sentence in the slaying of two women in a carjacking.

In the Rios Rico case, the dispute centered over the Justice Department's refusal to look for Pinkerton's body, according to people familiar with the matter. Informants, who apparently were granted plea deals in the case, had tipped federal prosecutors that her body was buried in a Waste Management Inc. landfill in Mobile, Ariz. It would cost $500,000 to $1 million to find it, however.

Federal prosecutors "told us they knew where she was buried,'' said Annette Grzybowski, Pinkerton's sister.

But she said Washington officials would not approve the expenditure.

"I was extremely upset,'' Grzybowski said. "It all took too long. It's been four years and we still haven't had a trial.''

By Hubert G. Locke, P-I Columnist
Friday, March 30, 2007

Working its way through the state legislative hopper is a bill that would create a task force to review the state's death penalty statutes. The task force would examine:

1) The uniformity of decisions made by prosecuting attorneys across the state when they decide to charge a person with committing a capital (i.e., punishable by death) offense.

2) The impact that race, gender, ethnicity or economic status might have on decisions to seek the death penalty.

3) Whether the death penalty in this state is applied randomly or capriciously.

4) The financial costs of trials and appeals when the death penalty is involved.

Each issue warrants extensive probing. Race and costs are usually matters that attract the greatest amount of interest and receive the most scrutiny. None of the four, however, may be of greater importance -- and less likely to get the attention it deserves -- than the first: how do the decisions of prosecutors across the state stack up when it comes to determining who will be charged with committing a capital offense?

It is common knowledge that not everyone who commits murder faces the prospect, if convicted, of the death penalty. As two high-profile serial murder cases in our state dramatized a few years ago, a number of factors affect the decision. A matter of pivotal importance is the choice made by the prosecuting attorney whether to seek the penalty of death in a given case. If asked why decisions differ from one county to the next, prosecutors would be the first to maintain that each case is different, every homicide is unique, and no hard or fast rule can be laid down that would assure uniform results.

Nevertheless, it's no secret that prosecutors also vary widely in the eagerness or caution with which they consider charging a person with the commission of a capital crime. One need not, for openers, try to make comparisons here in Washington; if one wants a case-in-point, no more stunning example -- on the eagerness side of the ledger -- can be found than in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Maricopa County has long been a national poster child for the bizarre in the criminal justice arena. Its four-term top county cop revels in the carefully cultivated reputation of being "America's toughest sheriff" -- a legend created by his instituting the practice of placing incarcerated offenders on chain gangs while they carry out various public works functions around the county, housing them in a canvas compound labeled Tent City where the meals cost 15 cents per person, and forcing inmates to wear pink socks and undershorts, ostensibly because of the "calming impact" the color has on inmate behavior.

Now -- and apropos to the Washington death penalty review -- comes word that the new prosecuting attorney in Maricopa County has nearly doubled the number of cases in which he has sought the death penalty, even though the number of first-degree murder cases in the county has not changed materially in the past decade.

In the year before the new prosecutor took office, the county sought the death penalty in 28 of 108 cases. Last year, the new prosecutor sought the death penalty in 44 of 89 murder cases. Currently, Maricopa County has 138 capital cases pending or awaiting trial -- a number that surpasses the total number of convicted offenders nationwide sentenced to death in 2006.

An overwhelming desire to be non-judgmental precludes opining as to whether randomness or capriciousness is involved in the Maricopa prosecutor's decisions. No judgment at all is required to conclude there's nothing whatsoever uniform about Maricopa's death penalty record with anyplace else in the nation.

Attorney General Robert Jackson, who became a distinguished justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and who served as a special prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, declared "the prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America." That alone is sufficient warrant for a task force to take a close, dispassionate look at how prosecutorial decisions in capital cases are made in our state and whether there is any consistency in those decisions across the state.

A number of state legislatures are reviewing the application of the death penalty in their jurisdictions and have called a moratorium on executions until the reviews are completed. Washington's review could not be more timely or appropriate.

Hubert G. Locke, Seattle, is a retired professor and former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington.