- The West Coast is ready to join those in Conneticut to protest the use of the death penalty. In San Francisco, more than 400 protestors organized outside of San Quentin to oppose the execution of Donald Beardslee.
- Meanwhile, Austrian's gathered to oppose the same execution. Specifically they were upset that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allowed the first execution in more than three years.
- Kansas, as you might remember, ruled that its own death penalty was unconstitutional. Now the Sedgwick County (Wichita, KS) District Attorney Nola Foulston, is urging the state legislature to wait on rewriting the death penalty provision. She believes it best to wait for the Supreme Court's potential ruling so that the legislators can have a better idea of what the Supreme Court wants Kansas to do in order to have a statute that passes constitutional muster.
- Speaking of Connecticut, the death penalty opponents feel that they have won two victories on the road to abolishing the statute. They will get a public hearing on abolishing capitol punishment in Connecticut and, they'll be allowed to get a little bit closer to the execution of Michael Ross next week.
- Federal prosecutors demonstrate again that they infrequently use the death penalty by deciding not to seek it in the street gang case.
The Supreme Court heard arguments today concerning whether Pennslyvania's death penalty scheme has proper jury instructions. This case is Rompilla v. Beard.
In this case the Judge did not instruct the jurors that in Pennsylvania the life in prison meant the same thing as life without the possibility of parole. In many places, such as Texas, life means that it is 30+ years.
In my opinion, having this option is one that really influences a jury to consider not imposing the death penalty. This is expecially true when the juror, or jurors, have moral qualms against the death penalty but say that they could impose it in the right circumstances.
The lower court also said the trial judge wasn't required to clarify that life in prison meant no possibility of parole, even though jurors asked about parole eligibility three times, since prosecutors had not raised the issue of Rompilla's "future dangerousness."
Personally, I don't agree with the fact that "future dangerousness" language is constitutionally required to need to disclose what legal terms mean. It seems clear to me the reason the prosecutor would not want to bring up what life in prison means in Pennsylvania.
This point might be moot as Souter brought up in the oral arguments:
During arguments Tuesday, Justice David H. Souter questioned whether prosecutors had indeed argued the point of future harm. Souter noted that prosecutors presented the man's history of violent felony convictions and suggested he might do it again.
Pennsylvania is the lone state (out of those who allow for life without parole) in not defining what the life sentence means to the jurors.
Of the 33 states that offer life-without-parole sentences, only Pennsylvania refuses to tell jurors -- even when asked -- that a defendant will not be released if given such a penalty.
Perhaps you belive this is a states rights issue? Perhaps you just believe that it is a matter of constitutional law, and constitutionally a state is allowed to give more protection than is actually required. I happen to think that when a persons life is at stake it makes more sense to err on the side of compassion and reveal the meaning. We will find out in June what the Court thinks.
