~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Washington Times

Opponents of death penalty see momentum

Repealed by five states in five years

by Daniel Jackson

Death penalty opponents said Thursday that this week's votes putting Connecticut on track to become the 17th state to abandon capital punishment shows that the long campaign against the death penalty is gaining serious momentum.

“The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty has been at it for 35 years, and I am pleased to say that the end of our struggle is in sight,” said Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the coalition in a statement.

Both Amnesty International and the National Coalition say they see momentum in state capitals to abolish the death penalty, in part because of new revelations exonerating a number of inmates on death row. Five states in the past five years have done away with the death penalty.

Joshua Rubenstein, northeast regional director of Amnesty International USA, said Connecticut state lawmakers used many of the arguments that Amnesty International put forth in the past.

Lawmakers narrowly passed a death penalty repeal in 2009 but could not override a veto by then-Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican. The 20-16 majority for repeal in the state Senate vote April 5 included several lawmakers who had opposed repeal in the past.

“When I sign this bill, Connecticut will join 16 other states and almost every other industrialized nation in moving toward what I believe is a better public policy,” said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat.

California has a ballot measure in November asking the voters in the state whether or not to repeal the state's death penalty. Ms. Rust-Tierney said the Kansas legislature almost repealed the punishment but was stopped by one vote in 2010.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, announced recently that he would not allow any executions to proceed in the state while he is in office. Capital punishment has been repealed and reinstated three separate times in the state.

Ms. Rust-Tierney said she was confident the state will not keep the death penalty. Once a state gets a taste of a justice system “not burdened” by the penalty, “it's hard to go back,” she said.

Under the new Connecticut statute, the harshest punishment would be living conditions similar to death row.

“Going forward, we will have a system that allows us to put these people away for life, in living conditions none of us would want to experience,” Mr. Malloy said. “Let's throw away the key and have them spend the rest of their natural lives in jail.”

Connecticut Democrats, on a largely party-line vote, pushed the death penalty repeal through despite the national attention generated by a sensationally gruesome 2007 murder in the state. The victims' relatives strongly spoke out for retaining the death penalty.

“There is no such thing as closure when your loved one is savagely taken from you. There can, however, be adequate and just punishment and that is the death penalty,” wrote William Petit and Johanna Petit Chapman in a letter in March 2011.

Mr. Petit survived a home-invasion in central Connecticut in 2007 which left his wife and two daughters dead. Mrs. Chapman is his sister.

“It's not a question of what they want and it's not a question of what the condemned prisoner deserves,” said Amnesty International's Mr. Rubenstein.

Many of those who voted to retain the death penalty cited the case, and also pointed up the inconsistency that 11 Connecticut inmates now facing execution would be “grandfathered in” and could still face the death penalty even when the new law takes effect.

“From my personal standpoint, the death penalty should be retained,” state Sen. Len Fasano told local radio station WCBS 880 recently. “I think the bill was a good bill to vote against because it's unconstitutional and illogical.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/12/opponents-of-death-penalty-see-momentum/?page=all#pagebreak

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Opinion

Seeking justice at the Zimmerman circus

by Wesley Pruden

Everybody in trouble with the law is entitled to a fair trial. Nobody is guilty until a court looks at the evidence and decides. A man is innocent until proved guilty. But sometimes we hold the trial at the circus, not the courthouse.

The state of Florida has charged George Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin . Mr. Zimmerman says he shot the boy in fear of his life. Now the court, and a jury if it gets that far, must shut their ears to the shriek and clatter of the circus, listen to cold facts, and decide.

This won't be easy. The suspect made his first appearance in court Thursday , arraigned on the second-degree murder charge, and his lawyer in his best judgment declined to ask for bail, citing “fervor” outside the courthouse.

“Fervor” has been the name of the exercise since the usual suspects discovered the incident several weeks after the fact, and concluded that it would be such a shame to let opportunity go to waste. The eminent divines Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton arrived as if on cue, elbowing each other out of the way to be the first in front of the cameras. Skilled in the arts of angering and inflaming, they wanted to “help.” They got unexpected help from President Obama, who stirred the anger from the White House with an appeal to emotions rubbed raw in Florida. “If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon .”

But what looked at first like an atrocity, a redneck execution of a cherubic black boy staring at us from a grammar school photograph, no longer looks like an atrocity, but a tragedy.

Trayvon's mother now says it was an “accident.” She wants an apology, an acknowledgment of her son's worth and of her loss, a recognition of what might have been if he had not been cheated of his life. “I believe it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back,” Sybrina Fulton said of George Zimmerman on NBC 's “Today” show. She would ask Mr. Zimmerman, she said, “Did he know [Trayvon] was a minor, that he was a teenager and that he did not have a weapon?” She suggested she would be satisfied even if Mr. Zimmerman is acquitted by a proper court. “We just want him to be held accountable for what he has done. We are happy that he was arrested so he could give his side of the story.”

That's not much for a mother to ask, particularly from a broken heart. But the Big Top is up, the tent stakes have been driven deep into the ground, ready for a long run. The circus is no place to calm a crowd. She “clarified” her remarks later, suggesting that maybe she didn't mean exactly what she said.

The Florida authorities, finally taking control of the story, understand that mere justice is not enough. There must be the reassurance of the perception of justice. Gov. Rick Scott appointed a female special prosecutor, Angela Corey of Jacksonville, and the case was assigned to Jessica Recksiedler, a female judge of the state circuit court. These won't be good ol' boys at work, eager to cover up mischief and misdeeds of white men.

The special prosecutor could have taken the case to a grand jury, which might have declined to return an indictment, despite a prosecutor's celebrated talent for indicting a ham sandwich. The governor no doubt wants a jury, or at least a judge, to make the determination of guilt or innocence. The state must prove that George Zimmerman was motivated by “hatred or ill will,” and his lawyers must prove only that “a preponderance of the evidence” - a lower standard - shows him to have acted in self-defense. One prominent Florida defense lawyer thinks it's likely, given the weight of the evidence already public, that the judge would dismiss the case when the jury retires to hear the evidence.

Then the circus could resume. The Justice Department is investigating whether the shooting of Trayvon Martin violated federal civil rights laws, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. promises that “at every step the facts and the law will guide us forward.” But it's clear where his hopes and sympathies lie.

Only this week he embraced Al Sharpton at a civil rights convention in Washington, thanking him “for your partnership, your friendship, and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless.” Only two cheers for the Big Top.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/13/pruden-seeking-justice-at-the-zimmerman-circus/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Editorial

Gun-free campuses are safety-free zones

Colleges should permit concealed carry

Five years ago Monday, 32 students and teachers lost their lives in a shooting at Virginia Tech . Earlier this month, seven students were killed and three wounded at a small California Christian university. These tragedies exemplify the failure of “gun-free” school zones and are evidence for the need to overturn concealed carry bans on campuses so law-abiding citizens can defend themselves against maniacs.

In the April 4 incident, One Goh allegedly lined up nursing students against a classroom wall at Oakland's Oikos University, from which he had been expelled, and opened fire. It would be difficult to imagine the fear those students must have felt as the gunman aimed his pistol at them and pulled the trigger. The shooter had no reason to fear for his own safety because firearms are banned at most postsecondary schools across the nation. While some attackers abandon the instinct for self-preservation and shoot themselves, police report Mr. Goh fled the scene and was arrested nearby. Had a responsibly armed person been present to threaten him, lives likely would have been spared.

Coincidentally, on the same day as the Oakland tragedy, hundreds of students at colleges nationwide attended class wearing empty holsters, a symbolic protest against widespread policies banning weapons from college property. The demonstration was arranged by Students for Concealed Carry (SCC), a nationwide campus organization with 43,000 members founded after the Virginia Tech tragedy. The group advocates the right to carry concealed firearms on campuses for the purpose of self-defense. “Colleges invite these shootings by guaranteeing criminals their victims will be disarmed,” said group spokesman David Burnett following the Oakland attack. Alameda County, where Oikos University is located, bans concealed carry.

Opponents of the right to bear arms always predict increased violence as a result of allowing concealed carry. The facts show otherwise. Florida approved the practice in 1987, triggering a trend leaving Illinois as the only state to ban concealed carry completely. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report shows that the violent crime rate nationwide peaked in 1991 and has declined nearly every year since.

Most colleges are exempt from concealed carry laws, but the movement to repeal campus gun bans is expanding. In 2010, the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed with Mountain States Legal Foundation and SCC that the University of Colorado's weapons policy violated the law. Other state colleges have since dropped their prohibitions. Nationwide, more than 200 campuses in six states now permit concealed carry. More than 20 campus shootings have occurred since 2001 - none by students with permits.

In Virginia, where emotions are still raw following the Blacksburg massacre, concealed carry is permitted, but college restrictions still exist. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in January that while hidden firearms are allowed on campus grounds, authorities can prohibit them inside school buildings and at public gatherings. Virginia Tech adopted the regulation in March.

The Second Amendment grants Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Where that right is respected, security prevails. Gun-free colleges risk becoming free-fire zones for troubled individuals. Common sense dictates that responsible gun bearers should be allowed on campus.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/12/gun-free-campuses-are-safety-free-zones/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Department of Justice

Acting Associate Attorney General Tony West Speaks at the Y Factor: Men Leading

by Example Event

San Francisco ~ Thursday, April 12, 2012

Good morning. Thank you, Esta for that kind introduction and for being a tireless leader in this nation's work to end violence against women and children. Esta and her staff at Futures without Violence have been invaluable partners to the Department of Justice for many, many years and I am grateful to be a part of this summit today.

I would also like to thank Ted and Cindy Waitt and the Waitt Institute for Violence Prevention for their visionary work in communities around the nation and for bringing us together today for this most important purpose.

It's great to be with you today, with so many individuals who are stepping up every day to the task of reducing and preventing violence against women and girls.

Let me begin by bringing greetings from the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, who wanted me to be sure to express his appreciation to all of you for the work you're doing to bring real, positive change to your communities. Your voices have really made a difference.

When we survey the landscape around the country and see great efforts such as this summit taking place, it reminds us that in the 17 years since the Violence Against Women Act was first passed, we can truly say we've made great progress in the way communities respond to domestic and dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

That Act was so important because it brought domestic violence and sexual assault out of the shadows and into the forefront of our national consciousness, changing the way gender-based violence is addressed in the United States.

It took a comprehensive approach to the issue, combining stiff penalties for offenders with critical programs to aid victims and prevent violence against women. And it invited us to work together, creatively across lines of gender, race, religion and class; encouraging local jurisdictions to bring together stakeholders from diverse backgrounds to share information and improve community responses.

But as reauthorization of that landmark piece of legislation is currently pending, we are reminded that we still have so much work left to do.

We are reminded that a third of women experience domestic violence in their lifetimes; that one in four will be raped while they are in college; that one in ten teens will be purposely hurt by someone they are dating; that before this day is done three more women will die from a domestic violence homicide.

These reminders are why curbing domestic and intimate partner violence and sexual assault remains an imperative that both the Attorney General and I are deeply committed to achieving.

Throughout my career I've been fortunate to hold many titles -- federal prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General, and now, as the number 3 ranking official in the Department of Justice, Acting Associate Attorney General -- but those pale in importance to the roles I play as father to a smart and talented daughter; as older brother to two magnificent sisters and brother-in-law to a third; as uncle; as son; as husband.

And when I think of these amazing women and girls who make up the constellation of my life, and then I think about the statistics I just cited which all of you know too well, it's clear to me that this issue isn't just some abstract policy debate taking place miles away in corridors most of us will never walk.

This issue is personal. And I know it's the same for you – it's personal. That's why you're here. Because this is about our mothers and our sisters; our wives and our daughters; our partners and our friends.

It's about our community and our relationships. And that means it's about us. Each one of us. As well as, importantly, those of us who are men.

As fathers, grandfathers, brothers, mentors, coaches, teachers and community members — men's voices must be part of this conversation -- in our homes, in our communities, in our schools and houses of worship -- as men this is our individual and collective responsibility.

And the involvement of men in this issue can make a critical difference. A recent national survey found that 73% of men think they can help reduce domestic violence and sexual assault. And when it comes to determining how men will act, do you know what one of the strongest influences is? It's what men believe other men think.

And we know from research that most men incorrectly assume that many other men accept the use of violence in relationships. So that puts a premium on men to stand up and step out and be heard to say that violence against women in any form is unacceptable.

And that's why this Y Factor summit is so important, as we highlight men who are leading by example. That's why it's important to honor Willie Mays and Joe Torre -- heroes of mine and two champions who are as passionate about creating communities free of violence as they are about rounding third and sliding into home. We're grateful to both of these great men for their commitment and their example, because so many other men and boys are watching and what they do can make a huge difference.

And I want you to know that at the Department of Justice, we are standing with you in this important work. We are very fortunate to be led by an Attorney General who truly "gets it." And he has done something extraordinary: he's made preventing violence against women and children a top priority at the largest law enforcement agency in the world.

I think one of the best examples of this is the Attorney General's Defending Childhood Initiative, which is examining ways we can break the cycle of violence that plagues too many of our families and communities across this country.

Our own research tells us that a majority of kids – over 60 percent – regardless of race – are exposed to some form of violence, crime, or abuse, ranging from brief encounters as witnesses to serious violent episodes to being direct victims themselves.

And the research confirms what many of us already know: that when children are exposed to violence they are more likely to suffer from depression, alcohol and substance abuse, poor academic performance and sadly, are more likely to perpetrate violence themselves.

But the good news is that when we intervene with children, and when we do it early, we can help them avoid this fate. We can help prevent children's exposure to violence in the first place by raising awareness and increasing knowledge, and we can help mitigate the harmful effects of exposure to violence through appropriate and early interventions when violence does occur. And that's exactly what the Defending Childhood initiative seeks to facilitate.

At the Justice Department we're also working with several organizations to create innovative approaches to old challenges. O ne of my responsibilities as Acting Associate Attorney General includes overseeing the Justice Department's grant making programs for state, local and tribal law enforcement and communities throughout the country. That includes the Office on Violence Against Women, the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing, all of which administer critical funding to victim service providers, community partners in violence prevention, and law enforcement programs across the United States.

And one of the key initiatives we launched last year was a partnership with this organization called the Engaging Men in Preventing Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence program.

This is truly a unique program which seeks to underscore the critical roles men play in preventing domestic and dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. It employs a variety of strategies all aimed at developing male allies who are willing to engage in a number of different ways, from leaders who publicly speak out against such violence in their communities; to bystanders whose actions in times of crisis can make all the difference; to men who are willing to use their everyday influence with other men and boys to help turn the tide on violence against women and girls.

I know some of our OVW Engaging Men grantees are here. I'd like to ask them to stand and be acknowledged.

So let me close by saying "thank you": Thank you for the dedication you've demonstrated to reducing domestic violence and sexual assault; thank you for being an inspiration to others looking for ways to stand up and make a difference.

Over forty years ago, Robert Kennedy spoke of the difference one person could make; that by their individual actions they send out tiny ripples of hope, ripples that are transformed through collective action into waves of change.

That's exactly what you are doing. Your direct influence may only be on a few. But by talking, by sharing, by leading by example, you are touching hearts. And by touching hearts, you are changing attitudes and reducing violence. And by changing attitudes, you are saving and changing lives.

Thank you for that effort and thank you for having me share in this summit with you today.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/asg/speeches/2012/asg-speech-120412.html