Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 112

Thread: Pennsylvania Capital Punishment News

  1. #1
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217

    Pennsylvania Capital Punishment News

    Death penalty law change sought for killers of elderly

    State legislators said today they are backing an amendment to Pennsylvania judicial procedure that would make the first-degree murder of a person over 60 years old or of the infirm an aggravating circumstance allowing juries to consider the possibility of the death penalty upon a guilty verdict.

    The proposal -- House Bill 2464 -- was proposed by state Rep. Matt Smith, D-Mt. Lebanon, in response to the June 4, 2003, beating and stabbing murder of Jean Heck, 78, in her Upper St. Clair home by her landscaper. Her killer, Patrick James Stollar, 29, was sentenced to death by the jury on Feb. 22 because there was an aggravating circumstance -- the killing was committed during the commission of a felony, the home-invasion robbery and burglary.

    Despite that outcome, the prosecutor in the case, Allegheny County Deputy District Attorney Mark Tranquilli, said the bill would close a loophole of age-based protection that currently applies only to the very young -- the murder of anyone under 12 is an aggravating circumstance, but not killing an elderly person. And, it would give prosecutors statewide one more tool in such cases, he said at a news conference today in Mt. Lebanon, called by Rep. Smith to discuss the legislation.

  2. #2
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Pa. court OKs forced drugging of death row inmates

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday said the state may force 2 death row inmates to take anti-psychotic medication in order to render them mentally competent to proceed with their cases.

    The high court, by a 4-2 decision, overturned rulings by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2 similar cases.

    Thavirak Sam was convicted of killing his mother-in-law, brother-in-law and 2-year-old niece in 1989. Herbert Watson was convicted of the 1982 shooting death of his estranged girlfriend. Both were sentenced to death but later found incompetent to participate in appeals filed on their behalf.

    "The jury's lawful verdict here was death," the majority opinion in Sam's case written by Chief Justice Ronald Castille said. "... That judgment and sentence have not been executed, nor can they be executed so long as (a post-conviction appeal), which appellee never authorized, sits in stasis in perpetuity ... as a roadblock to the execution of a lawful judgment."

    In both cases, the court instructed lower courts "to order that appellee be administered, involuntarily if necessary, anti-psychotic medication to render him competent." If the treatment succeeds, courts must find out whether the inmate wants to proceed with appeals, and if so, whether he can help his attorney in doing so, the high court said.

    The majority opinion was joined by justices Thomas G. Saylor, J. Michael Eakin and Seamus P. McCaffery. Justices Max Baer and Debra Todd dissented.

    Baer said "the governmental interest in carrying out the sentences of death fails to outweigh the violation of Sam's and Watson's liberty interests in not having psychiatric medication forced upon them."

    The majority opinion said medicating the inmate so that he could decide whether to pursue post-conviction appeals was in his own interest. Baer, however, said the defendant "has as much of an interest in avoiding an unwanted and forced drugging as he has in pursuing collateral relief."

    Watson's attorney, Samuel C. Stretton, said he was "very disappointed" by the decision and was inclined to pursue an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, although he planned to do more research before deciding to do so.

    "I'm worried about this decision," he said. "I think it sets a very bad precedent."

    The justices relied on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling limiting when mentally ill criminal defendants can be forcibly medicated to make them well enough for legal proceedings. Stretton said the Pennsylvania ruling pushed the federal high court's reasoning "to the outer limits."

    Stretton said that even though his client had repeatedly said he wanted to be executed, medical expert witnesses had found him incompetent. A prosecution expert said treatment could help, but the judge sided with two defense experts who said he would not get better with treatment, Stretton said.

    "It's a very serious issue involving life or death, and courts overruling lower courts ... and now ordering forced medication for the purpose of potentially executing someone," Stretton said. "It's very worrisome to me."

    Sam's attorney, Jules Epstein, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

    (Source: The Associated Press)

  3. #3
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Partial article

    January 27, 2009

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427767804

    Pa. Justices: OK to Execute 'Mentally Deficient' People

    By Leo Strupczewski
    The Legal Intelligencer

    In a decision that may prove to be a lightning rod in the debate over Pennsylvania's use of the death penalty, the state Supreme Court has ruled that any criminal defendant with mental impairments, short of being legally defined as "mentally retarded," can be executed for capital offenses.

    A dissenting justice accused the majority of being "draconian" and warned the ruling might lead to putting mentally retarded people to death.

    The justices in the 5-2 decision in Commonwealth v. Vandivner ruled that those seeking waiver of the death penalty must show records noting a defendant's mental illness began before his or her 18th birthday -- a decision Justice Max Baer labeled as problematic for certain defendants.

    "To say this is troubling is an understatement," Baer wrote in his concurring and dissenting opinion. "Many defendants, such as appellant, were not afforded the specialized expert attention, IQ tests, or adaptive assessments memorialized in school records, required by the majority to corroborate their claim of mental retardation."

    Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille said that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia allowed states to define "mental retardation" and that his ruling merely followed the definition set forth by the state Supreme Court in 2005 in Commonwealth v. Miller.

    The Miller ruling, he wrote, requires a defendant to prove three things -- that his or her IQ is roughly at or below 70, that he or she has limited adaptive behavior skills and that he or she has had such problems since before his or her 18th birthday.

    In James W. Vandivners case, the debate centered on whether Vandivner was diagnosed as mentally retarded before his 18th birthday.

    Here is the link to the court's opinion:

    http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Sup...114-2007mo.pdf

  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Natural Causes Biggest Threat On Pa. Death Row

    PHILADELPHIA (AP) ― Ten years ago, Gary Heidnik had two slices of cheese pizza and a couple of cups of black coffee, met with his daughter, and spent the rest of the day on his bed or pacing his cell. That night, he was given a lethal injection for imprisoning, torturing and murdering two women in the basement of his Philadelphia home.

    In the decade since, Pennsylvania has executed no one. Its death row is the fourth-largest in the nation, yet the 218 men and five women are far more likely to die of natural causes than injected chemicals, gas, electricity or bullets.

    Since the commonwealth reinstated the death penalty in 1978, three inmates have been executed; all had dropped their appeals. At least seven times that number have passed away, most of natural causes such as cancer or heart failure, while awaiting execution, according to an informal Corrections Department tally.

    To find a Pennsylvania inmate unwillingly put to death, you have to go back almost half a century to the last use of the electric chair.

    "I think it is indicative of a split — people want the death penalty but don't want a lot of executions," said Richard Dieter of the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center.

    It wasn't always so in Pennsylvania. The commonwealth has recorded more than a thousand executions in its history, starting with public hangings in the time of the early colonists. Hundreds were put to death in the electric chair during the first half of the 20th century.

    Supporters of the death penalty attribute the recent dearth to resistance in the courts, while opponents point to errors in past cases discovered during the close scrutiny of the appeals process.

    Defense attorneys say there's good reason for the modern reluctance, given recent high-profile exonerations of death row inmates. Last year, Nicholas Yarris, freed from Pennsylvania's death row in 2004 after 23 years behind bars on murder and rape convictions, reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with the county in which he was prosecuted.

    "When you look at some of the people who have been exonerated, it's quite a frightening thing to know that we could have been executing an innocent person," said Charles Cunningham of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. "It's bad enough to put an innocent person in jail, but to take that person's life, it's horrifying."

    A 2007 American Bar Association assessment noted such cases and chided the commonwealth for not taking steps to make erroneous convictions less likely, such as ordering preservation of biological evidence and recording interrogations. A state Supreme Court committee in 2003 called for a moratorium, saying minorities make up two-thirds of the inmates on death row.

    New Jersey became the first state in four decades to abolish the death penalty in 2007, and New Mexico followed suit this year. Others are considering doing the same, citing not only concerns about possible execution of the innocent or bias in application, but also concerns about the cost of the system.

    "You could be maintaining them in prison for less, but that's essentially what they are — they are in prison for life through an expensive process," Dieter said.

    Prosecutors, however, defend the use of capital punishment and state lawmakers have shown no inclination to end it.

    "It would be ironic to repeal the death penalty, if the people believe it's an appropriate punishment in a very small number of cases, merely because opponents of the death penalty have tried to frustrate its operation," Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg said.

    Thirty-five states allow the death penalty, but only nine or 10 in a typical year have executions; of the 37 last year, most were in the South — and most of those occurred in Texas. California has the nation's largest death row with 678 inmates but has had only 13 executions since 1978.

    Dieter said he believes all elements in the justice system — prosecutors, juries, state and federal courts, governors — have to be willing to impose the ultimate penalty for it to be applied regularly. That is the case in Texas, for example, but not in other jurisdictions, where at least one element finds fault with the option or the way it is applied.

    "I think there's a lot of ambivalence about the death penalty, but not enough to overturn it, not enough to completely eradicate or abolish it," he said. "That's a hard vote for a legislator or governor. So you have this stalemate."

    Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz, a former secretary for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, says that while polls show that the public backs the death penalty in Pennsylvania, the support appears less strong than in other states and the issue has not been made a political priority.

    "For years, I used to tell people 'Just wait, the floodgates will open and we'll have a ton of executions,'" Ledewitz said. "I no longer say that anymore, because for some reason it's not happening. ... I don't see any evidence that it will."

    Since Heidnik's death, Pennsylvania has come close to executions a few times.

    In 2000, Daniel Saranchak was to be executed for the 1993 shooting deaths of his grandmother and uncle, but a federal judge ordered a new trial, citing an ineffective lawyer. And George Banks was to be put to death in 2004 for the 1982 massacre of 13 people, but a state judge said he was too mentally ill.

    On July 6, 10 years to the day after Heidnik's execution, Rendell signed the death warrant of an Altoona man who petitioned the governor to do so. Walter Wright III was convicted of killing the husband of a woman he had dated briefly after bursting into their home early Thanksgiving morning in 1998.

    Wright, who has maintained his innocence, is scheduled for execution Sept. 3. Federal public defenders, though, immediately jumped in with a request to halt the proceedings while they map out an appeal on constitutional issues — leaving the death chamber unused into another decade.

    http://kdka.com/wireapnewsfnpa/Pa.de...2.1099555.html

  5. #5
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Pennsylvania lawmakers debate who should decide if defendants have mental capacity to face death penalty

    By KARI ANDREN
    The Patriot-News

    Eight years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that convicted criminals with mental retardation cannot be given the death penalty.

    But the ruling left it up to each state to determine how to handle such cases, and Pennsylvania has yet to do so.

    Lawmakers, advocates and law enforcement officials clash on a key issue:

    Should a judge determine if a person lacks the mental capacity for the death penalty, or should the jury decide?

    The debate resumed Monday at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. The panel heard arguments on a bill before state lawmakers that would give judges the power to make the decision before the case goes to trial.

    The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Mary Jo White, R-Venango County, was passed by the state Senate last summer.

    Under the bill, to be considered mentally retarded, the person must score low on IQ tests, have significant limitations in adapting to society and must have been diagnosed with the disability by age 18.

    White said at Monday’s hearing that it doesn’t make sense to go through the expense of a death-penalty trial only to have a person deemed ineligible for the punishment.

    “Our criminal justice system is in danger. It’s a budget-buster,” White said.

    Capital trials are more expensive than other trials. They require more expert witnesses and higher standards for jury selection and defense counsel.

    County officials and many disability advocacy groups support the bill.

    Bill Burke, a board member of The Arc of Pennsylvania, said juries are not qualified to make the clinical diagnosis that someone is mentally retarded. He said it would also take time and money to educate juries.

    “A person’s mental retardation makes them vulnerable during the trial itself, which is why it is important to resolve the question of capital punishment before the trial commences,” Burke said.

    Many states determine mental capacity prior to trial, said Jim Ellis, a University of New Mexico law professor and the attorney who argued the U.S. Supreme Court case in 2002. The Florida Supreme Court overturned a state law that determined mental retardation post-trial, he said.

    Law enforcement officials argue that a jury should make the decision in such cases.

    Juries already decide claims of insanity or self-defense, said Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr.

    Juries are better equipped to make the determination after hearing the facts of the case, Marsico said. Plus, a possible death sentence gives attorneys more plea options, he said.

    “Passing this bill is an elitist response to a problem that really doesn’t exist,” said Marsico, who appeared at the hearing. “This bill tells our citizens they are not smart enough to decide this issue, even with instructions from a judge.”

    In the case of Joey Miller, a former Steelton resident convicted of four murders, the plan before the state House would have prevented a capital trial from occurring and prevented an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

    A judge vacated Miller’s death sentence after she deemed him mentally retarded, based on low IQ scores and participation in special-education classes. He is serving a life sentence.

    Miller’s crimes “were well thought out,” Marsico said.

    Miller was married with children, held a job and planned the killings, targeting minority women — factors that led Marsico to discount claims that Miller had intellectual disabilities.

    “Based on his life, we believed he was someone who should not escape the death penalty,” Marsico said.

    The state attorney general’s office and the Fraternal Order of Police also oppose the plan. They worry that everyone facing a death-penalty trial will try to convince the judge they are mentally impaired.

    “This will be raised often,” said Chris Carusone, chief deputy attorney general. “If there’s any hint of a mental problem ... it will be raised.”

    The House panel took no action Monday. State Rep. Thomas Caltagirone, D-Berks County, the committee chairman, said he is unsure how many members on the panel support the plan. But he said he would call it to a vote if White would ask him to.

    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind..._debate_1.html

  6. #6
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Should a jury or judge determine whether a murderer is mentally retarded?

    Eight years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a murderer who is mentally retarded cannot face the death penalty because it's cruel and unusual punishment.

    But the ruling allowed states to decide how to handle such cases, and in Pennsylvania, officials are still debating whether a judge or a jury should determine whether a defendant is mentally retarded.

    State senators voted 45-2 last year in favor of a bill that would allow a judge to determine whether a defendant is mentally retarded before a trial begins. The House Judiciary Committee is now debating the issue.

    In the community, prosecutors, defense attorneys and advocates for the mentally disabled differ on whose role it is to make the call. Some cite financial concerns as part of their argument.

    Local defense attorney Jeffrey Marshall, who is certified to handle death-penalty cases, said he sees it as an eligibility issue and thinks a judge should make the decision before trial. It's similar to a judge determining whether a defendant is competent to stand trial.

    "I see it as a separate issue," Marshall said.

    Otherwise, a jury would have to make the determination after the defendant is found guilty of first-degree murder. He questioned whether the jury would have a separate hearing on the issue before considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances for the death penalty phase.

    Gregory Knox, executive director of the ARC of York County, said he worries that testimony presented at trial might prejudice jurors in ruling on whether the person is mentally disabled.

    A ruling before trial would ensure a fair, independent determination, Knox said.

    The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania supports the Senate bill for a pragmatic reason: It would help to save money.

    First-degree murder trials cost double what non-capital ones do, said Michael D. Chambers, executive director of the Mental Health/Mental Retardation Program Administrators Association of Pennsylvania. It is an affiliate of the county commissioners association.

    The cost for trials falls on the taxpayers, and having a judge decide whether the defendant is eligible for the death penalty before a trial would help to save money, Chambers said.

    Others, however, think a jury should determine whether a murderer is mentally retarded. The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association is one.

    "We have a strong tradition in Pennsylvania in putting our faith in juries, and they have served us well for over 200 years," executive director Richard Long said.

    Juries listen to the evidence and make difficult decisions -- including whether a defendant is guilty -- and they do it well, he said.

    It's an "elitist move" to say that a jury is not capable of coming to a proper decision, Long said.

    His association doesn't see a big difference financially by having a jury decide, Long said. Capital cases involving a defendant with mental retardation are few and far between.

    Some say they don't care whether a judge or a jury makes the ruling.

    "I think either of them are capable of making the decision," York County District Attorney Tom Kearney said.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    THE CHAMBERS CASE

    Karl Stephenson Chambers was convicted of first-degree murder and received the death penalty twice in the 1986 beating of 70-year-old Anna Mae Morris.

    Both sentences were overturned, and in 2005, Chambers was sentenced to life in prison after a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held the execution of mentally retarded murderers was cruel and unusual punishment.

    Judge John S. Kennedy deemed Chambers mentally retarded and therefore not subject to the death penalty.

    http://www.ydr.com/rss/ci_15924288?source=rss

  7. #7
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Governor Rendell Urges General Assembly to Review Effectiveness of Pennsylvania's Death Penalty

    HARRISBURG, Pa. -- In one of his final acts as governor, Governor Edward G. Rendell today wrote to the General Assembly to urge legislators to review the effectiveness of Pennsylvania's death penalty.

    Earlier today, the Governor signed six execution warrants, bringing to 119 the number of warrants he has signed during his eight years in office. No executions were carried out during his time as governor.

    Media contact: Gary Tuma, 717-783-1116

    Editor's Note: The text of the Governor's letter follows:

    Jan. 14, 2011

    To Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly:

    As of this date, I have signed 119 execution warrants since taking office in January 2003, and not one execution has been carried out during the last eight years. In fact, none are even close to having a final date set. The only executions carried out since the death penalty was reinstated in Pennsylvania in the late 1970s were two in 1995 and one in 1999, and those three men – Keith Zettlemoyer, Leon Moser, and Gary Heidnik – had waived their appeals and asked that their sentence be carried out.

    There are inmates on death row today who were convicted and sentenced to death during my tenure as District Attorney of Philadelphia County (1978-1986). As a former District Attorney and as a death penalty supporter, I believe the death penalty can be a deterrent – but only when it is carried out relatively expeditiously. Of course, great care must be taken to ensure the guilt of the offender, and every advance in science and technology should be made available to the defendant. However, a 15-, 20-, or 25-year lapse between imposition of a death sentence and the actual execution is no deterrent. In the public's eye, the crime and the victim may be long forgotten. To criminals on the street, our death penalty is simply not a reality.

    The time lapse between conviction and execution generally results from capital defendants' efforts to exhaust every legal challenge to their conviction and death sentence that is available to them under state and federal law. That is the way it should be; every meritorious issue must be raised and addressed. While Congress and this body have enacted laws to help curtail and streamline the appellate process in capital cases, the length of time between the imposition of the sentence and actual execution, if it occurs at all, can be decades and is still too long. Victims' survivors are frustrated; the police are frustrated. The lengthy appeals process not only costs taxpayers substantial money, but it also robs the victims' families and friends of peace of mind, and they get no closure.

    Therefore, it seems to me that the time has come to re-examine the efficacy of the death penalty under these circumstances. I would ask you to explore whether there can be any additional steps taken that allow for a thorough and exhaustive review of the facts and the law in each case, but that would significantly shorten the time between offense and carrying out the sentence. If you conclude that there is no avenue to achieve this, then I ask you to examine the merits of continuing to have the death penalty on the books – as opposed to the certainty of a life sentence without any chance of parole, pardon or commutation. You should also explore whether creating that type of life sentence would require a Constitutional amendment.

    Sincerely,

    Edward G. Rendell, Governor

    SOURCE Pennsylvania Office of the Governor

  8. #8
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Pa. bill strengthens penalties against sexually violent murderers

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) - The state House Judiciary Committee has approved a bill to increase the likelihood that previously convicted sex offenders who commit a sexually violent murder receive the death penalty.

    Bill sponsor Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre/Mifflin, said a sexually violent murder in combination with registration under Megan's Law would be considered an aggravating circumstance.

    The bill now heads to the full House for consideration.

    http://www.abc27.com/Global/story.asp?S=14173611

  9. #9
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Graterford contract will be rebid to add death row, female unit

    The Corbett administration on Wednesday scrapped a $322 million contract to replace Graterford Prison, saying the facility should be redesigned to include a death row and a separate unit for female inmates.

    The announcement by acting Corrections Secretary John Wetzel doesn't halt the rebuilding plan but is expected to add another delay to what is already one of the largest corrections projects in the country.

    The plan to build a new prison next to the existing one in Skippack Township was announced in early 2009, but a shovel has yet to break ground.

    State officials now say they hope to receive new bids this year and complete the 4,100-bed prison for maximum- and medium-security inmates by the end of 2014. It was not clear how the changes would affect the cost, although the project ceiling will remain $400 million.

    "This, by no means, is a failure in design. It's an opportunity for us to improve upon the design," said Wetzel, who became Gov. Corbett's nominee for the corrections position after serving as Franklin County Jail warden. "Before we spend millions of dollars building a new prison, we need to ensure the money is being spent in an appropriate manner and that the prison design is in line with our department's mission."

    The announcement also reflected a reality of the state prison system: Many of its inmates commit their crimes around Philadelphia but serve their sentences far from the city.

    Nearly half the 216 Pennsylvania inmates awaiting execution are from Philadelphia, but most are housed at a prison death row in Greene County, at the opposite end of the state, officials said.

    An exclusive unit for capital cases at Graterford could reduce transportation costs for those prisoners, Wetzel said.

    (Graterford houses about 45 capital-case inmates in a unit reserved for prisoners restricted for disciplinary or administrative reasons.)

    Similarly, almost a third of the state's 2,668 female inmates are from the Philadelphia area, officials said. But Pennsylvania's only prisons for women are in Lycoming County, in the north-central part of the state, and Crawford County, in the far northwest.

    Wetzel said the female unit at Graterford would be "a transitional facility" for women with six months or less left on their terms.

    His announcement came four months after state officials awarded the rebuilding contract to a partnership between 2 firms, Walsh Construction of Chicago and Heery International of Atlanta. Representatives from each could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.

    Troy Thompson, a spokesman for the General Services Department, said officials hoped to accelerate the new bidding process to stay within the project timetable.

    "We're putting it on the fast track," he said.

    The news elated contractors who had accused the state in a lawsuit of violating bidding practices and fair agreements on the Graterford project. Their case had been on appeal but now becomes moot.

    "We are very pleased," said Diane Tokarsky, a lawyer for a coalition of 20 contractors.

    (Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer)

  10. #10
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Pa. House OKs bill seeking death penalty for sexually violent murderers

    The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has approved legislation that would increase the likelihood that those who commit sexually violent murders face the death penalty.

    House Bill 317 targets people who already are registered as a sex offender or sexually violent predator under Megan's Law.

    Rep. Kerry Benninghoff (R-Centre/Mifflin), who sponsored the legislation, said a sexually violent murder in combination with the Megan's Law registration would be considered an "aggravating circumstance" for seeking the death penalty at sentencing.

    The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration.

    http://www.abc27.com/story/14387183/...lent-murderers

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •