Post by Maggie on Jun 25, 2005 9:26:19 GMT -5
A 'hanging judge's' second thoughts
Fairness and balance aren't possible, so death penalty should be scrapped
By Donald A. McCartin
The retired Orange County Superior Court Judge, co-author of a recent book, "Perfect Justice," lives in Bass Lake.
This may seem strange coming from a man known as the "hanging judge" of Orange County, but I think it's time to abolish the death penalty. During my 15 years on the bench (1978- 1993), I sent nine men to death row. I believed then it was the appropriate punishment for certain murders, but recent events have altered my view.
One was the Scott Peterson case. I agree with famed Wyoming attorney Gerry Spence that facts related to the murders of Laci Peterson and her unborn child did not meet the threshold of a capital case. Death row is reserved for those with histories of criminal behavior who commit particularly savage murders. Peterson had a spotless record and none of us knows the true circumstances of his wife's death. Yes, the public loathes him, but that cannot be a factor in a death verdict.
Several high court decisions have impacted my views as well. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles under 18 may not be sentenced to die. Appeals courts now concern themselves about killers with IQs in the subnormal range. Do we really intend to execute only intelligent killers who waited until becoming adults before committing murder?
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and some of its arguable decisions, helped influence me.
A case in point is William Payton. While presiding over his 1982 murder trial, I allowed jurors to hear testimony about "Bible Billy's" jailhouse discovery of religion. The jury apparently didn't believe that his post-murder conversion mitigated the brutal rape-stabbing of his female victim.
Yet the 9th Circuit Court overturned the death verdict because I had not instructed jurors to ignore the prosecutor's argument that Payton's renascence was not a mitigating circumstance. The U.S. Supreme Court recently reinstated Payton's death sentence, but had I foreseen the wasted years and resources, I'd have sentenced him to life without parole.
Another I condemned, Rodney James Alcala, first landed on death row 25 years ago. He's now back in Orange County jail awaiting his third trial in the murder of 12-year- old Robin Samsoe. In its ruling, the 9th Circuit Court said I erred during Alcala's second trial by not allowing testimony from a psychologist who wanted to testify that a key witness had not only been hypnotized by several detectives but also by the prosecutor!
I disagree. Still, these legal debates result in staggering expenses and years of irresolution. These expenses have helped convert me. In times of huge budget deficits, too much money is squandered in murder trials and retrials.
Studies show capital cases cost triple the amount of non-capital cases. When I tried Randy Kraft, one of this country's most prolific serial killers, the tab exceeded $10 million. This hemorrhage of taxpayers' money continues as his case and hundreds more crawl through the legal labyrinth, but anyone sentenced to die is justly entitled to his Supreme Court-mandated appeals. It currently costs $90,000 more every year to house a convict on death row. Clearly, waste could be drastically curbed by simply dumping capital punishment.
I recognize that basing my decision on systemic failures opens me to the argument that once the problems are corrected, capital punishment would be acceptable. Though this sounds logical, I believe fixing these deficiencies is searching for the Holy Grail. The chances of establishing faultless government, impeccable industry or immaculate religious organizations border on nonexistent.
This also applies to the quest for perfect justice. Human error, inequities, biases and personal ideologies create the problems that have caused my rejection of the death penalty. Because these frailties will not magically vanish, capital punishment cannot be implemented with any sense of balance or fairness, thus it must be abolished.
Objection overruled!
www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/06/24/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_572329.php
Fairness and balance aren't possible, so death penalty should be scrapped
By Donald A. McCartin
The retired Orange County Superior Court Judge, co-author of a recent book, "Perfect Justice," lives in Bass Lake.
This may seem strange coming from a man known as the "hanging judge" of Orange County, but I think it's time to abolish the death penalty. During my 15 years on the bench (1978- 1993), I sent nine men to death row. I believed then it was the appropriate punishment for certain murders, but recent events have altered my view.
One was the Scott Peterson case. I agree with famed Wyoming attorney Gerry Spence that facts related to the murders of Laci Peterson and her unborn child did not meet the threshold of a capital case. Death row is reserved for those with histories of criminal behavior who commit particularly savage murders. Peterson had a spotless record and none of us knows the true circumstances of his wife's death. Yes, the public loathes him, but that cannot be a factor in a death verdict.
Several high court decisions have impacted my views as well. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles under 18 may not be sentenced to die. Appeals courts now concern themselves about killers with IQs in the subnormal range. Do we really intend to execute only intelligent killers who waited until becoming adults before committing murder?
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and some of its arguable decisions, helped influence me.
A case in point is William Payton. While presiding over his 1982 murder trial, I allowed jurors to hear testimony about "Bible Billy's" jailhouse discovery of religion. The jury apparently didn't believe that his post-murder conversion mitigated the brutal rape-stabbing of his female victim.
Yet the 9th Circuit Court overturned the death verdict because I had not instructed jurors to ignore the prosecutor's argument that Payton's renascence was not a mitigating circumstance. The U.S. Supreme Court recently reinstated Payton's death sentence, but had I foreseen the wasted years and resources, I'd have sentenced him to life without parole.
Another I condemned, Rodney James Alcala, first landed on death row 25 years ago. He's now back in Orange County jail awaiting his third trial in the murder of 12-year- old Robin Samsoe. In its ruling, the 9th Circuit Court said I erred during Alcala's second trial by not allowing testimony from a psychologist who wanted to testify that a key witness had not only been hypnotized by several detectives but also by the prosecutor!
I disagree. Still, these legal debates result in staggering expenses and years of irresolution. These expenses have helped convert me. In times of huge budget deficits, too much money is squandered in murder trials and retrials.
Studies show capital cases cost triple the amount of non-capital cases. When I tried Randy Kraft, one of this country's most prolific serial killers, the tab exceeded $10 million. This hemorrhage of taxpayers' money continues as his case and hundreds more crawl through the legal labyrinth, but anyone sentenced to die is justly entitled to his Supreme Court-mandated appeals. It currently costs $90,000 more every year to house a convict on death row. Clearly, waste could be drastically curbed by simply dumping capital punishment.
I recognize that basing my decision on systemic failures opens me to the argument that once the problems are corrected, capital punishment would be acceptable. Though this sounds logical, I believe fixing these deficiencies is searching for the Holy Grail. The chances of establishing faultless government, impeccable industry or immaculate religious organizations border on nonexistent.
This also applies to the quest for perfect justice. Human error, inequities, biases and personal ideologies create the problems that have caused my rejection of the death penalty. Because these frailties will not magically vanish, capital punishment cannot be implemented with any sense of balance or fairness, thus it must be abolished.
Objection overruled!
www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/06/24/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_572329.php
