An unintended boost for the death penalty

Wilbert Rideau, a convicted killer, was spared the electric chair thanks to a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating capital punishment as it was applied then. That outcome gratified opponents of the death penalty, a group that includes me. But this week, Rideau walked out of a Louisiana prison, an outcome that ought to disturb opponents of the death penalty. His release will strengthen support for capital punishment by demonstrating that the alternative can't be trusted.

The alternative, of course, is life imprisonment without parole. Most critics of capital punishment understand that permanent confinement serves to punish the killer, prevent him from taking other lives and deter others from killing. A lot of Americans who support the death penalty would actually be content with something else: Though 73 % say they favor it for murder, the figure drops to just 53 % if the alternative penalty is life without the chance of parole.

So why does capital punishment remain popular? One big reason is that many Americans don't believe life without parole really means life without parole. They fear that some way or another, by hook or by crook, some vicious killers will be allowed to walk the streets as free men. Rideau stands as proof that they're right.

Rideau, who has gained considerable recognition as a prison journalist, doesn't deny that he's a killer. In 1961, he robbed a bank in Lake Charles, La., kidnapped three employees and made 1 of them drive the group to a remote spot. There, he shot all of them. 2 of them survived. The third, Julia Ferguson, he stabbed to death with a hunting knife. Rideau was convicted of her murder and sentenced to die.

But the courts overturned three convictions, though never on grounds of innocence. And finally, in a fourth trial that took place 44 years later, a jury found him guilty only of manslaughter. Since he had already served more than the maximum term for that crime, he was released.

From the news coverage, you'd think he had been exonerated. The headline in the New York Times said, "Freed after 44 years, a prison journalist looks back and ahead." In USA Today, it was "La. prison journalist freed after 44 years." Notice: Not "killer freed," but "prison journalist freed."

No one wanted to get all hung up on the fact that Rideau deliberately snuffed out one life and tried to end two more. Everyone was too busy feeling good about the new freedom of "the most rehabilitated prisoner in America," as he has been called.

Rideau, who is black, was undoubtedly treated badly by the white-controlled criminal justice of the old segregationist Louisiana. But it wasn't Jim Crow who thrust a knife into the heart of Julia Ferguson.

Forcing a retrial put the prosecution in an almost impossible position. "It's very difficult to try a case that's 44 years old," said Calcasieu Parish District Atty. Rick Bryant. "We had 13 witnesses who were unavailable, including the two eyewitnesses, and we had to present them by reading transcripts." One of the 2 people he tried to kill died in 1988, and the other was too sick to attend.

Rideau and his supporters blamed his conviction on the racism that once pervaded the South--as if that were an explanation for robbing and killing innocent people. "This jury," Rideau said afterward, "reached back and pulled a judgment out of the racial clutches I was long in."

A local pastor objected to the very idea of holding him responsible for his actions. "It's a judicial lynching," said Rev. J.L. Franklin. "You spend millions on a 40-year-old case. It's ludicrous."

Not to the family of the dead woman, I suspect. The implication is that after a while, we should all be willing to forgive a man for deliberately killing someone who had done him no harm. At this point, apparently, Wilbert Rideau's life is more important than Julia Ferguson's.

That's the sort of attitude that drives supporters of the death penalty--and some of us opponents--up the wall. It fosters support for state-sponsored executions by suggesting that we, as a society, lack the resolve to make life sentences actually last for life. But anyone who truly believes in abolishing the death penalty has to put an equal priority on making sure that the killers spared execution will be locked up for good.

The disadvantage of the death penalty is that when you inflict the punishment on an innocent person, you can't undo it. But it has an advantage: You also can't undo it when you get a guilty one.

(source: Column, Steve Chapmen, Chicago Tribune)

As I understand it, the man's convictions were overturned, and on re-trial he was only convicted of manslaughter. If he were sentenced to death his conviction would probably get even more appellate scrutiny, and there would be at least the same possibility that his case would be reversed, with a 2nd trial resulting in manslaughter.

Or am I missing something? Why were his convictions overturned?

I believe the point being made is that there is no such thing as life without parole. No one can guarantee that a defendant will serve out his life in prison. Politicial, legal and social changes will invariably lead to the release of some killers who would otherwise have been executed.

If you don't believe this, take a look at a little loophole in the 3g law. Remember 3g? That's the article 42.12, sec. 3g, that promises the defendant will serve at least half of his sentence before he is eligible for parole? So, if he gets life, he must do at least 30 years in prison.

A few years ago, the Leg slipped in an exception that allows the parole board to release a 3g offender if he has a terminal illness or needs long-term medical care. Seems every year, inmates who should be serving their sentences are being released. Those numbers are not advertised.

MSNCB: Court ruling could free nearly 200 lifers

Delaware decision draws protests from victims� kin, lawmakers

DOVER, Del. (AP) - A ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court could free nearly 200 inmates serving life terms for murder, rape and kidnapping � a decision that has drawn impassioned protests from victims� families and lawmakers.

The court�s decision that some life sentences should be considered 45-year terms applies only to life-with-parole sentences handed down for crimes committed before Delaware clarified its sentencing laws in mid-1990.

On Tuesday, the state House unanimously passed a bill declaring the ruling �null and void,� although lawmakers acknowledged the measure may violate the separation of powers.

�I have some severe doubts about the constitutionality of this piece of legislation,� said Rep. Robert Valihura, a Republican from Wilmington. �That said, I rise in support of this legislation because we have to do something. ... If this is unconstitutional, we have bought ourselves some time.�

The vote came after lawmakers heard pleas from victims� families. Greg Whaley said his grandparents were killed in 1961 and his family recently learned that the man who was responsible � and who publicly vowed to kill others if he was ever freed � could be released in four weeks.

�I thought one of the functions of government was to protect the citizens,� Whaley said.

Life with parole considered 45 years
Before 1990, a sentence of life with parole was considered a 45-year term for purposes of calculating good time credit and setting a parole date. Prosecutors maintained that if an inmate was repeatedly denied parole, he could be held until he died.

The state Supreme Court disagreed in November, saying a lifer must be released after he has served 45 years, minus time off for good behavior. The high court refused to reconsider that ruling last week.

Delaware Attorney General M. Jane Brady decried the ruling.

�Now, the Delaware Supreme Court has interpreted the law to mean that life isn�t life � it is 45 years, and that the 45-year sentence can be reduced by good time,� Brady said in a statement. �The practical effect of which is to reduce these life sentences to as little as 26 years despite a denial of parole.�

The decision came in the case of Ward Evans, who was convicted in 1982 of rape and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Evans was denied parole three times before he argued that he should have a release date calculated as if he had a 45-year sentence.

Brady said the ruling would affect nearly 200 inmates. It does not affect inmates sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder.

In the measure passed Tuesday, the House said the court erroneously applied the 45-year criteria to the conditional release statute and misinterpreted the intent of the legislature. The initiative now goes before the state Senate and then must be approved by Gov. Ruth Ann Minner.

[sorry, I'm too lazy to fix all the font errors.]

I recently received a phone call from a Senator's office. They were concerned because they had learned that a defendant, who was convicted of a serious violent crime, had been released within a year of his long prison sentence being imposed. Seems the parole board used the medical illness exception.

What is even more troubling is that the defendant had the same illness when he committed the crime. And, I bet the jury got the standard instruction about how the defendant must serve at least half of his prison sentence, up to 30 years, before he is eligible for parole. Turns out, that was a lie.

I am currently prosecuting a defendant who received a 50-year sentence less than 10 years ago. Who want to bet that the jury who sentenced this guy thought that he would spend the rest of his life in prison, as he was 45 or so at that time? What is the point of providing for jury sentencing, when the juries have absolutely no idea what they are actually sentencing a person to? And even more troubling, how is the community supposed to feel when they breathe a sigh of relief upon seeing a killer get a life sentence, only to read on the next page of the paper that another killer with the same sentence just got out? Or even worse--how are the killers supposed to feel? Are they going to be more or less deterred in committing their crimes once they learn that they will only have to serve a fraction of whatever sentence they get (if they are caught), even when it's life?

Look for the Lege to consider allowing the release of sex offenders on MRIS (medically recommended intensive supervision) to save on prison health care costs. This is currently prohibited, but may not be for long. We'll keep folks posted as things develop ...

As we've discussed before, this whole prison overcrowding/parole thing seems to work on a cycle. No need to worry. Sooner or later another Kenneth McDuff will parole out sooner than he should, kill a bunch of innocent victims, and then everyone (media included) will let out a tremendous hue and cry over what the Legislature was thinking when they eased the parole restrictions on murderers, child-molesters, etc.. And then the Legislature, under the glare of tremendous public pressure and scrutiny, will cough up the money to build more prisons. You'd think, however, that some of the old-timers over there in Austin like Sen. Whitmire and Sen. Ellis would remember the adverse consequences of cutting costs at the expense of public safety. It's just sad that there will have to be some truly sympathetic and innocent victims before the Legislature's attention will become refocused.

Florida Probation Scandal

Florida deaths put probation in the spotlight

Lawmakers try to keep violent offenders in jail and give officers better resources

By DAVID ROYSE
Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE, FLA. - The slayings were shocking enough by themselves: In February, an out-of-work mechanic allegedly abducted, raped and killed an 11-year-old girl. In August, six people were bludgeoned to death in what was believed to be a dispute over a video game.

The news after arrests in both cases was even more alarming: The accused murderers had recently violated probation and probably shouldn't have been on the street.

The cases served as an embarrassment to Florida officials and have prompted lawmakers to put the probation system high on their priority list as they look ahead to this year's legislative session.

Their goal is to keep violent probation offenders behind bars while providing more resources for officers to adequately keep watch over criminals.

"We think this is the No. 1 issue facing Florida," Attorney General Charlie Crist said.

The Legislature tried but failed to make any substantive changes to the probation system nearly a year ago after the killing of Carlie Brucia, whose case garnered national attention because her kidnapping was caught on a surveillance videotape at a car wash.

Joseph Smith, who is charged in the killing, had violated probation numerous times, which many people believe should have landed him back behind bars.

Another probation blunder occurred a few months later in the case of Troy Victorino, who allegedly killed the six people in Deltona. He was on probation in July when he was arrested on a battery charge, but a delay in the paperwork kept him on the streets. Victorino actually had visited his probation officer the day before the killings.

The Department of Corrections, which oversees Florida's probation program, fired four probation officers after Victorino's arrest in the massacre.

The department also changed its policies by ordering officers to make arrests without warrants of violent offenders when they violate probation conditions, pending a court hearing on the violation.

Crist is proposing a law that would put more pressure on judges to keep probation offenders locked up.

Kay Shukwit thinks the law should go further � taking away any discretion about what should be done with violent felons who violate their probation. Her daughter, Michelle Nathan, was one of the victims in the Deltona massacre.

"They're on probation for a reason," Shukwit said. "Once you (commit a crime) again, you're done. You should go back to jail and you stay."

Several people involved in the system say additional resources for probation officers and more use of new technology that allows smarter tracking of probationers are the main needs.

State Sen. Rod Smith, a former prosecutor, said the state does not have enough officers for the number of people on probation.

And they're not equipped to take on more responsibility, which is what the state has asked them to do.

Despite the problems, Corrections Secretary James Crosby said the overall system is not broken.

"There's a lot of things you can go back on Monday morning and question," he said.

Lee, I agree. But there is already a whole generation of young adults who don't even know who Kenneth McDuff is. I gave a speech in Austin recently at UT, and not a single person in the audience (all college kids) had heard of McDuff. And one of his later murders was Austin's own Colleen Reed. But they were about 3 years old then.

But we have to accept the responsiblity to remind people of the consequences at every opportunity. When you get the chance to speak to a group of citizens, tell them about how the pendulum swings and motivate them to DO something. Use these stories or the real ones from Texas and teach whoever will listen.