DOCSLIB.ORG

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Hearing State Capitol Harrisburg, Pa Main Capitol Buil

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Hearing State Capitol Harrisburg, Pa Main Capitol Buil COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING STATE CAPITOL HARRISBURG, PA MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING ROOM 14 0 THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2 015 9:08 A.M. PRESENTATION ON PENNSYLVANIA'S DEATH PENALTY MORATORIUM BEFORE: HONORABLE RONALD MARSICO, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE RICK SACCONE HONORABLE JOE PETRARCA HONORABLE SHERYL DELOZIER HONORABLE TINA DAVIS HONORABLE MIKE REGAN HONORABLE TODD STEPHENS HONORABLE MIKE VEREB HONORABLE KATE KLUNK HONORABLE JASON DAWKINS * * * * * Pennsylvania House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2 COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT: THOMAS DYMEK, COUNSEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JUDICIARY REPUBLICAN CAUCUS SARAH SPEED, COUNSEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JUDICIARY DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS 3 I N D E X TESTIFIERS ~k k k NAME PAGE HON. EDWARD M. MARSICO, JR. DAUPHIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION......... 7 Accompanied by HON. CRAIG STEDMAN LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE......... 9 And RONALD EISENBERG, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE............ 20 ROBERT DUNHAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER....................53 PAMELA GROSH DIRECTOR OF VICTIM/WITNESS SERVICES, LANCASTER COUNTY ON BEHALF OF CRIME VICTIMS ALLIANCE OF OF PENNS YLVNIA..................................... 108 And JENNIFER R. STORM VICTIM ADVOCATE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE VICTIM ADVOCATE........ 114 MARC BOOKMAN DIRECTOR ATLANTIC CENTER FOR CAPITAL REPRESENTATION........ 127 ROBERT BLECKER PROFESSOR OF LAW NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL................................ 14 6 KATHLEEN LUCAS PENNSYLVANIA FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE DEATH PENALTY.18 7 SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY ~k ~k ~k (See submitted written testimony and handouts online.) 1 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 ~k ~k ~k 3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN MARSICO: Good morning, 4 everyone. Just want to welcome everyone here today to this 5 Public Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. We have a 6 very good turnout so far and expect other members as well 7 to be here to join us today. 8 Just a few ground rules, if you will. The 9 hearing is scheduled to go to 11:10 so we're going to try 10 to keep it to 11:10 a.m. and so I'm going to ask each -­ 11 I'm going to ask the Members to limit their questions to - 12 maybe to one question per Member and then, as you know, you 13 can see the -- this hearing is being recorded. I'd also 14 ask everyone to silence your cell phones. 15 I'm going to ask the Members to introduce 16 themselves. We'll start down here to my right. Rick? 17 REPRESENTATIVE SACCONE: Good morning. I'm 18 Representative Rick Saccone. I represent the southern part 19 of Allegheny County and the northern part of Washington 20 County. 21 CHAIRMAN PETRARCA: Rep. Joe Petrarca, Democratic 22 Chair of the Committee. I would like to thank everyone for 23 being here today. I think this week with Special Meetings 24 and what we did on the floor yesterday, I think we're 25 putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, on some of 5 1 this but, again, glad everyone's here today and I look 2 forward to the testimony. 3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN MARSICO: Thanks, Chairman. 4 Sarah, introduce yourself. 5 MS. SPEED: Sarah Speed, Democratic Executive 6 Director of the Judiciary Committee. 7 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN MARSICO: Go ahead, Tom. 8 MR. DYMEK: Tom Dymek, Executive Director for the 9 Committee. 10 REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Sheryl Delozier, 11 Cumberland County, 88th District. 12 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Tina Davis, Bucks County. 13 REPRESENTATIVE REGAN: Mike Regan, Cumberland and 14 York County. 15 REPRESENTATIVE STEPHENS: Todd Stephens, 16 Montgomery County. 17 REPRESENTATIVE VEREB: Mike Vereb, Montgomery 18 County. 19 REPRESENTATIVE KLUNK: Kate Klunk, York County. 20 REPRESENTATIVE DAWKINS: Jason Dawkins, 21 Philadelphia County. 22 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN MARSICO: That's it. I'm Ron 23 Marsico from Dauphin County, Chair of the Committee. 24 This is the second hearings that we're having on 25 the issue of capital punishment and so in March of this 6 1 year, the Committee was down in Philadelphia to hear from 2 the families of the victims. It was -- that was hearing 3 was devoted to specifically to hearing from those families 4 of murder victims. 5 Each of the family members who testified lost a 6 loved one and the perpetrator of each crime sits on 7 Pennsylvania's death row. In fact, one family that 8 testified was the Eng family who lost Trista Eng at the age 9 of 16 at the hands of Hubert Michael whose execution would 10 have taken place last Friday except for a last minute 11 reprieve by Governor Wolf. At that hearing, Committee 12 Members received a glimpse of the effect on those victims 13 left behind, not just the Eng family but the spouses, the 14 children, and other family members of several victims. 15 We did this because I believe that the true 16 concern for the victims and their family is often lost amid 17 a discussion of capital punishment because I believe that 18 to debate the pros and the cons of the death penalty, we 19 need always to keep in mind what sort of terrifying acts 20 led to the imposition of the death penalty in the first 21 place and the lasting impact that these violent acts have 22 on the families of the victims. 23 Today, we are joined by members of different 24 experts and advocates, all of whom are very well educated 25 about the capital punishment system. Some support the 7 1 death penalty. Others oppose it. We think we have a well 2 -- we have a balanced testifiers today. Some support the 3 death penalty and other oppose it, like I said. 4 Looking forward to hearing from all of them as 5 well as they explain their positions and then we'll take 6 any questions from Committee Members. 7 With that, we're going to begin with the 8 testifiers. The first to testify are the Pennsylvania 9 District Attorney's Association, The Honorable Ed Marsico, 10 Dauphin County District Attorney, Honorable Craig Stedman, 11 Lancaster County District Attorney, and Ronald Eisenberg, 12 Deputy District Attorney from the Philadelphia District 13 Attorney's Office. Welcome, and you may proceed when 14 you're ready. Good morning. 15 MR. MARSICO: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. 16 Chair. Good morning, members of the Judiciary Committee. 17 On behalf of the Pennsylvania District Attorney's 18 Association, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to 19 testify here this morning. As you noted, Mr. Chair, I'm 20 joined by my colleague, Craig Stedman, District Attorney of 21 Lancaster County, as well as Ron Eisenberg from the 22 Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. 23 Our purpose here today is to talk to the 24 Committee about sort of the process that prosecutors go 25 through in determining whether or not a case should be a 8 1 capital case, as well as, you know, our collective 2 experience in dealing with the death penalty. 3 I've been a prosecutor for 27 years now in the 4 District Attorney's Office in Dauphin County and in that 5 time, we've seen hundreds, literally hundreds, of murder 6 cases but only a few cases where the decision was made to 7 seek capital punishment. 8 I think what you'll find is District Attorneys 9 across the Commonwealth take these cases, as they should, 10 as seriously as we can. We go through a deliberative 11 process to determine whether or not it's a case that we 12 believe warrants capital punishment under the 13 circumstances. As the Members I'm sure are aware, capital 14 punishment is reserved only for first degree murders and 15 first degree murders are murders that involve the specific 16 intent to kill or premeditation must be proven beyond a 17 reasonable doubt in those first degree murders and not 18 every first degree murder warrants capital punishment. 19 We've had many cases over the years. I tried a case one 20 time where a murderer killed his estranged wife in front of 21 their eight-year old daughter. She was my only witness in 22 the case and I remember getting criticism from individuals 23 saying why wasn't that a death penalty case. Well, there 24 was no aggravating circumstance. So only first degree 25 murders where there's an aggravating circumstance that we 9 1 believe can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt are cases 2 where we seek the death penalty. 3 At this time, I'm going to let Craig talk a 4 little bit about that process and what prosecutors do in 5 determining whether or not to seek the death penalty. 6 MR. STEDMAN: Good morning. I think it's 7 important before you do talk about the death penalty to 8 understand the real issue here is what's required to 9 prosecute a death penalty case and to get a death sentence 10 in Pennsylvania in 2015 because that's the issue. The 11 issue is not what took place in Georgia or Alabama in 1975 12 because they are vastly different and after our testimony, 13 I think you'll have a better perspective of how difficult 14 it is, and appropriately difficult it is, to get a death 15 sentence here, the solemn decision that we go through, and 16 DA Marsico talked a little bit about the aggravating 17 circumstances and just so you know, there's limited 18 circumstances that's listed in the Legislature for us to 19 obtain a homicide.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES of AMERICA the Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The execution of mentally ill offenders I cannot believe that capital punishment is a solution – to abolish murder by murdering, an endless chain of murdering. When I heard that my daughter’s murderer was not to be executed, my first reaction was immense relief from an additional torment: the usual catastrophe, breeding more catastrophe, was to be stopped – it might be possible to turn the bad into good. I felt with this man, the victim of a terrible sickness, of a demon over which he had no control, might even help to establish the reasons that caused his insanity and to find a cure for it... Mother of 19-year-old murder victim, California, November 1960(1) Today, at 6pm, the State of Florida is scheduled to kill my brother, Thomas Provenzano, despite clear evidence that he is mentally ill.... I have to wonder: Where is the justice in killing a sick human being? Sister of death row inmate, June 2000(2) I’ve got one thing to say, get your Warden off this gurney and shut up. I am from the island of Barbados. I am the Warden of this unit. People are seeing you do this. Final statement of Monty Delk, mentally ill man executed in Texas on 28 February 2002 Overview: A gap in the ‘evolving standards of decency’ The underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency. Indiana Supreme Court Justice, September 2002(3) On 30 May 2002, a jury in Maryland sentenced Francis Zito to death.
    [Show full text]
  • The Illusion of Control “Consensual” Executions, the Impending Death of Timothy Mcveigh, and the Brutalizing Futility of Capital Punishment
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The illusion of control “Consensual” executions, the impending death of Timothy McVeigh, and the brutalizing futility of capital punishment The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men. On crimes and punishments, Cesare Beccaria, 1764. There is no proof that the death penalty ever made a single murderer recoil when he had made up his mind, whereas clearly it had no effect but one of fascination on thousands of criminals; in other regards, it constitutes a repulsive example, the consequences of which cannot be foreseen. Reflections on the guillotine, Albert Camus, 1957. If...we are to be sincere in our efforts to reduce violence, there is one type of violence that we can with complete certainty eliminate. That is the killing of criminals by the state. The question is, will people learn to respect life better by threat or by example? And the uniform answer of history, comparative studies and experience is that man is an emulative animal. Norval Morris and Gordon Hawkins, US criminologists. A defendant’s voluntary submission to a barbaric punishment does not ameliorate the harm that imposing such a punishment causes to our basic societal values and to the integrity of our system of justice. Certainly a defendant’s consent to being drawn and quartered or burned at the stake would not license the State to exact such punishments. Whitmore v Arkansas, US Supreme Court, Justice Marshall dissenting, 1990. The death penalty, guns, violence in society, these cast a large cloud on America’s moral leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 EXECUTION OF THE MENTALLY ILL3 THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT 4 INEFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION9 FEDERAL FUNDING FOR DEATH ROW LAW CENTRES REMOVED 11 US CONGRESS ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT LEGAL APPEALS FOR DEATH ROW INMATES 12 FORMER GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI’S STATE PRISON SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY12 THIRTY-EIGHTH STATE REINTRODUCES THE DEATH PENALTY 13 THREE STATES REJECT THE RETURN OF THE DEATH PENALTY14 FIRST EXECUTIONS IN MONTANA AND PENNSYLVANIA 15 CRUELTY OF EXECUTIONS 16 TEXAS TO ALLOW VICTIM’S FAMILY TO WITNESS EXECUTIONS 17 POLL SHOWS LITTLE SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY AMONG POLICE CHIEFS 17 PARTICIPATION OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS IN THE EXECUTION PROCESS 18 PRISONERS WHO ABANDONED THEIR APPEALS AND SOUGHT EXECUTION 19 PRISONERS EXECUTED DURING 199521 STATISTICS24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Developments on the death penalty during 1995 Introduction At the end of 1995 an unprecedented number of prisoners - over 3,000 - were under sentence of death in 34 states and under US federal military law (8 prisoners) and US federal civilian law (6 prisoners). Fifty-six prisoners were executed; a higher total than in any previous single year since states revised their death penalty statutes in the mid-1970s. This brings to 313 the total number of prisoners executed in the USA since 1977. New York became the thirty-eighth state to reintroduce the death penalty in March 1995. The states of Pennsylvania and Montana carried out their first executions since the death penalty resumed in 1977. However the two prisoners executed in Pennsylvania had chosen to abandon their appeals and had sought execution.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2020 A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2020 (As of January 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2620 (2,620 – 189* - 906M = 1525 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,103 (42.10%) Black 1,089 (41.56%) Latino/Latina 353 (13.47%) Native American 27 (1.03%) Asian 47 (1.79%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,567 (97.98%) Female 53 (2.02%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 31 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, ColoradoM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 22 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Baldus, David; Papers Apap329
    Baldus, David; Papers apap329 This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on March 01, 2021. M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections & Archives Baldus, David; Papers apap329 Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 4 Biographical History ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Scope and Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Arrangement of the Collection ...................................................................................................................... 7 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 7 Controlled Access Headings .......................................................................................................................... 8 Collection Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Calendars, Notebooks, and Desk Reference ............................................................................................... 8 Faculty Papers ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment and DNA Testing Final Product
    Capital Punishment and DNA Testing Final Product University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs PIA 2896 – MPPM Capstone Seminar By Albert P. De Amicis, Master of Public Policy and Management Wednesday, April 9, 2003 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...iii DEFINE THE PROBLEM………………………………………………………………...1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………………...7 ESTABLISH THE EVALUATION CRITERIA……………………………………….......8 EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE POLICIES …………………………………………......8 Status Quo .................................……………………………………………............ 8 Alternative One - Former Governor George Ryan of Illinois. …………..................10 Alternative Two - The Innocence Project...…………………………….…...............12 DISTINGUISHING AMONG ALTERNATIVES………………………………………......15 Alternative One - Former Governor George Ryan of Illinois...…..............................15 Alternative Two - The Innocence Project....…………………………….........….......18 DISTINGUISHING AMONG ALTERNATIVE POLICIES..................................................21 APPLICATION OF THE SATISFICING METHOD – TABLE-3.........................................21 MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES ………………………............21 SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................22 BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................25 APPENDIX A...........................................................................................................................28
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row USA, Winter 2000
    DE.AIii ROW U.SA Winter2000 A quarterllJ report hlJ. the Capital Punishment Project 0£ the NAACPLegal De£ense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services,Criminal Justice Project · NAACP Legal Defense & EducationalFund . \_., TOTAL NUMBER OF'DEATHROWINMATES KNOWN TO LDF: . 3,652 Race of Defendant: White 1,701 (46.71%) Black 1,562 (42.77%) ' Latino/Latina 312 ( 8.54%) Native American 45 ( 1.23%) Asian 31 ( .85%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,600 (98.58%) Female 52 ( 1.42%) Juveniles: Male 69 ( 1. 89°/o) DISPOSmONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1973: Executions: 59'8 Suicides: . 54 Commutations: 90 (including those by the Governor ofTexas resulting from favorable court decisions) Died of natural causes or killed while under death sentence: 157 Convi~ions/Sentences reversed: 1697 JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 40 (Underlinedjurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,California, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware , Florida, Georgia, Idaho , Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New Yorlc,North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government,U .S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 13 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vennont,West Virginia,Wisconsin . Death Row U.S.A. Page I In the United States Supreme Court October Term - 1999 SignificantCriminal , Habeas, & Other Pending Cases · 1. CASESRAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Bond v. United States, No. 98-9349 (Manipulationofluggage stored in overhead bin of bus) (decision below at 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 2016 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Fall 2016 (As of October 1, 2016) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,902 Race of Defendant: White 1,226 (42.25%) Black 1,215 (41.87%) Latino/Latina 380 (13.09%) Native American 27 (0.93%) Asian 53 (1.83%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,848 (98.14%) Female 54 (1.86%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 33 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 20 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware [see note below], District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: The Delaware statute was found unconstitutional by the state supreme court. Retroactivity of that decision was not determined as of 10/1/16. Those previously sentenced to death remain under sentence of death. New Mexico legislatively repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Summer 2016 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2016 1.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL PUNISHMENT in PENNSYLVANIA: the Report of the Task Force and Advisory Committee
    JOINT STATE GOVERNMENT COMMISSION General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA: The Report of the Task Force and Advisory Committee June 2018 Serving the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Since 1937 - 1 - JOINT STATE GOVERNMENT COMMISSION Telephone: 717-787-4397 Room 108 Finance Building Fax: 717-783-9380 613 North Street E-mail: [email protected] Harrisburg, PA 17120-0108 Website: http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us The Joint State Government Commission was created in 1937 as the primary and central non-partisan, bicameral research and policy development agency for the General Assembly of Pennsylvania.1 A fourteen-member Executive Committee comprised of the leadership of both the House of Representatives and the Senate oversees the Commission. The seven Executive Committee members from the House of Representatives are the Speaker, the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Majority and Minority Whips, and the Majority and Minority Caucus Chairs. The seven Executive Committee members from the Senate are the President Pro Tempore, the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Majority and Minority Whips, and the Majority and Minority Caucus Chairs. By statute, the Executive Committee selects a chairman of the Commission from among the members of the General Assembly. Historically, the Executive Committee has also selected a Vice- Chair or Treasurer, or both, for the Commission. The studies conducted by the Commission are authorized by statute or by a simple or joint resolution. In general, the Commission has the power to conduct investigations, study issues, and gather information as directed by the General Assembly. The Commission provides in-depth research on a variety of topics, crafts recommendations to improve public policy and statutory law, and works closely with legislators and their staff.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 622, May 5, 1995
    soC!: .••, . ... iiIl&AllA'.X_523 No. 622 4!!11' ~!t~~:-,- 5 May 1995 In Wake· 01 Oklahoma ·;llrICi·ty: Government launches Assault on Your Rights The death toll is climbing toward 200 which killed 84 people, as part of a strat­ in the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. egy of provoking chaos, is typical of Murrah federal building in Oklahoma their M.O. Extreme nationalists, who see City. The blast, which reportedly came whole peoples as their scourge, also from several thousand pounds of ammo­ engage in such criminal slaughter of ran­ nium nitrate fertilizer mixed with fuel dom people, as in the ethnic-national oil and a detonator, tore away a huge butchery racking the former Yugoslavia. swath in all nine floors of the steel­ So do the imperialists, who have regu­ reinforced concrete structure. The build­ larly slaughtered whole populations in ing housed a broad spectrum of govern­ the name of freedom and democracy. ment agencies, from the Social Security The Oklahoma bombing may well Administration and the Department of have been modeled after a strikingly sim­ Agriculture to the Secret Service, the ilar scenario described in The Turner Drug Enforcement Administration and Diaries, a 1978 novel by West Virginia the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire­ white-supremacist William Pierce. (In arms (BATF). Overwhelmingly, the vic­ this book, which is it bible for American tims of this act of indiscriminate terror fascists, a fertilizer bomb destroys FBI were ordinary government workers, headquarters at 9: 15 a.m.) Former Green black and white, who staff the offices in Beret colonel Bo Gritz, who in 1988 ran the building.
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide and Competency
    Michigan Law Review Volume 103 Issue 5 2005 Killing the Willing: "Volunteers," Suicide and Competency John H. Blume Cornell Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Disability Law Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation John H. Blume, Killing the Willing: "Volunteers," Suicide and Competency, 103 MICH. L. REV. 939 (2005). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol103/iss5/2 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KILLING THE WILLING: "VOLUNTEERS," SUICIDE AND COMPETENCY John H. Blume* INTRODUCTION When my client Robert South decided to waive his appeals so that his death sentence could be carried out, I understood why he might make that choice. Robert had a brain tumor that could not be surgically removed. Though not fatal, the tumor disrupted his sleep/wake cycle and had other negative physical consequences, including severe headaches, for his daily existence. He also had chronic post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), resulting from a profound history of childhood physical, emotional and sexual abuse. Robert suffered from daily recurrent flashbacks of the abuse. He had been on death row for almost a decade, and his children were grown. In his own words, he was "tired," and he no longer wanted to go on.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice)
    ETHICS IN LIFE AND VOCATION Dr. Mark L. Whitman, Social and Behavioral Sciences (Criminal Justice) Alfred State College 10 Upper College Drive Alfred, NY 14802 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. ETHICS IN LIFE AND VOCATION Dr. Mark L. Whitman, Social and Behavioral Sciences (Criminal Justice) Alfred State College 10 Upper College Drive Alfred, NY 14802 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. ETHICS IN LIFE AND VOCATION Table of Contents Introduction/Preface ..................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1 - Why Ethics? .............................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 2 - Virtue Ethics And Ethical Systems ....................................................................... 20 Chapter 3 – Laws/Crime/Deviance & Ethics............................................................................ 33 Chapter 4 – Corruption in the System ...................................................................................... 46 Chapter 5 – Ethical Leadership ................................................................................................. 60 Chapter 6– Criminal v. Racial Profiling & Surveillance .......................................................
    [Show full text]