12/4 ** URGENT**FOUR DAYS to APPEAL to GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER!!!

Victims’ Families Call for End to Executions

Statement of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights and
The Journey of Hope….From Violence to Healing
on the 1000th Execution

As our country approaches the 1000th execution since 1977, we think about the losses represented by that number. We think of the loss of the life of the murder victim, and the loss to that victim’s family and community. We are people who have experienced that loss directly. The question, “How would you feel if someone in your family were murdered?” is not a hypothetical question for us; it is the reality we must live with every day. But we do not believe that the death penalty will bring us closure, healing, or justice. Another killing does not bring back our family member and it does not make us feel safer. We would like to live in a society that demonstrates its concern for victims by devoting resources to preventing violence and to addressing the real needs of victims in the aftermath of violence.

We think, too, about all the families who have been left behind in the aftermath of 1000 executions: the families of the person who was executed. After 1000 executions, how many parents, siblings, children, and other relatives are left isolated in their grief and lacking the support offered to others who suffer the loss of a family member? It is time to consider the social costs of the death penalty: how many people are affected by a single execution? In particular, how many children?

As families of murder victims and families of people who have been executed, we stand together and declare that it is time to abolish the death penalty.

Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights and the Journey of Hope…From Violence to Healing are two organizations whose membership includes survivors of homicide victims who are opposed to the death penalty.

Contact information:

Renny Cushing, Executive Director
Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights
617 491 9600 (0) 617 930-5196 (c)
rrcushing@earthlink.net
www.murdervictimsfamilies.org

Bill Pelke, President
Journey of Hope…From Violence to Healing
877-924-4483 (O) 305-775-5823 (C)
www.journeyofhope.org
bill@journeyofhope.org

http://www.1000executions.org/victims.html

Why a human rights framework for death penalty abolition work?

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to life. Article 5 states that no person shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The death penalty violates both these human rights.

By definition, human rights cannot be either granted or denied by a government. By framing the death penalty as a human rights issue rather than a criminal justice issue, we are saying that whatever form of government a nation has, whatever the assumptions or policies of its criminal justice system, it should not be allowed to take the lives of its own citizens. Thinking of the death penalty this way takes it out of the realm of specific criminal justice systems and places it in the realm of international human rights standards, which transcend national borders and are based in our common humanity across the globe.

MVFHR believes that the anti-death penalty movement in the United States can draw strength from this international human rights framework and from solidarity and partnership with those who are working against the death penalty in other countries ­­­– and not just in countries that no longer have the death penalty, but also in countries that still retain it. In viewing the issue this way, we are building upon the work of human rights, anti-death penalty, and victims’ activists in this country and around the world.

We believe that survivors of homicide victims have a recognized stake in the debate over how societies respond to murder and have the moral authority to call for a consistent human rights ethic as part of that response. Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights is the answer to that call.

http://www.murdervictimsfamilies.org/

Religious Leaders Urge Clemency For Stanley Tookie Williams

(excerpt)

Ten interdenominational religious leaders, representing more than 27 million worshippers, have asked California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant clemency for Stanley Tookie Williams, who is scheduled to be executed by intravenous injection December 13, 2005.

The Rev. Julius Hope, NAACP Director of Religious Affairs, said, "These leaders bring with them the prayers of their membership resulting in 27 million more voices crying in the wilderness, in the hope that Governor Schwarzenegger will bring about a positive and well deserved decision to show mercy and grant clemency to Mr. Williams."

In a letter to Schwarzenegger signed by the faith leaders, Hope said, "For those who believe that the State killing of Stanley Williams today would in anyway be fulfilling justice would mean the forever denying of forgiveness, or the recognition of human beings to grow, learn and change."

The religious leaders said they are "keenly aware of the adverse effects of crime in today's society." However, they said, "we also understand that the price cannot be paid or satisfied by the death of someone who has made contributions to reach out to those habitually forgotten individuals whom society does not pay attention or invest in until they are caught up in an ugly vicious cycle of survival."

Please read the rest (and see the list of signatories) @ http://www.naacp.org/news/2005/2005-12-02-2.html

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND APPELLATE REVIEW
To date, Stanley Williams’ case has received extensive legal scrutiny in both state and federal court. Since his conviction in 1981, Williams has pursued multiple appeals and habeas corpus petitions. In each and every instance, in both state and federal court, his conviction has been affirmed as appropriate and just.

• On April 18, 1980, the trial court granted Williams’ motion to substitute his hand-picked attorney, Joseph Ingber, as attorney of record in place of Gerald Lenoir.
• On January 21, 1981, the jury trial commenced and on March 13, 1981, the jury returned guilty verdicts of four counts of first degree murder and two counts of robbery. The jury also found the special circumstance allegations of robbery-murder and multiple murder to be true. Lastly, the jury found true the special allegations that defendant Williams personally used a shotgun and that a principal was armed with a firearm.
• On March 17, 1981, both parties having rested without presenting evidence at the penalty phase, argument was presented on behalf of the People and defendant Williams as to whether the penalty should be death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Following arguments and instructions of law by the Court on this issue, the jury, on March 18, 1981, returned a verdict of death as to each of the charged first-degree murders.
• On April 15, 1981, defendant Williams’ motions for a new trial and for modification of the verdict and findings imposing the death penalty were heard by the Court and denied. The trial court then sentenced Williams to death on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7.
• On April 11, 1988, on automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, in the cases of People v. Stanley Williams, Crim. No. 21977, and In re Stanley Williams, Crim. No. 23806, consolidated under Case No. S004365, and published at (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, the imposition of the death penalty was affirmed and defendant Williams’ first habeas petition was denied following an evidentiary hearing.
• On January 18, 1989, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams’ second state habeas petition in Case No. S008526.
• On that same date, January 18, 1988, defendant Williams filed his first federal habeas petition in the United States District Court in Case No. CV89-00327SVW. The district court held that petition in abeyance while defendant Williams returned to the California Supreme Court with his unexhausted claims.
• On April 11, 1994, following another evidentiary hearing, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams’ third state habeas petition in Case No. S011868, published at (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572.
• On June 21, 1995, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams’ fourth state habeas petition in Case No. S039285.
• On December 21, 1988, defendant Williams returned to federal court and, following an evidentiary hearing, the United States District Court denied defendant Williams’ amended habeas petition in Case No. CV89-00327-SVW, and published its order at (1998) 41 F.Supp.2d 1043.
• On December 17, 1999, defendant Williams’ subsequent Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the judgment was denied, and the order was published at (1999) 1999 WL 1320903.
• On September 10, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied defendant Williams’ direct appeal and Rule 6 (b) motion in Case Nos. 99-99018 and 00-99001, published at (2002)306 F.3d 665.
• On September 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals amended the opinion and denied defendant Williams’ petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, published at (2004) 384 F.3d 567.
• On February 2, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendant Williams’ subsequent petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, published at (2005) 396 F.3d 1059.
• Finally, on October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied defendant Williams’ petition for writ of certiorari in Case No. 04-10500. As this historical accounting proves, Williams has benefited from a detailed and exhaustive review of all of his legal claims and each court has affirmed the guilty verdicts and affirmed the death sentence. In doing so, our courts, both state and federal, have given appropriate and serious consideration to Williams, consideration which Williams so violently denied each of his victims.

I was wrong: a meditation on Tookie Williams
By Jeffrey M. Gamso
Nov 21, 2005, 03:33

(excerpt)

Tookie's a special case and worthy of our attention - everyone's attention.

It's not that he shouldn't be killed. Of course he shouldn't. It's not that he's innocent (by any definition). It's not that he's been nominated for Nobel Prizes and praised by President Bush (who took it back when he learned Tookie was on death row). Those things make for a dramatic story line and lend some interest to his tale, but they don't make him so special that Ohioans and everyone else should be working for his clemency.

What sets Tookie apart is that there's actually a chance that he'll get clemency without any serious debate aover whether he was guilty. Tookie Williams just might get clemency simply because he's a better guy now than he was when he went to prison. We're not talking error correction here - the governor being asked to do a job the courts should have done but didn't. We're talking simple mercy.

If you study the history of the death penalty, you'll see that clemency has historically been an act of grace. But that conception of clemency died with the apparently widespread populatiry of state killing. Governors no longer show mercy - it's a sign of weakness or something and means they won't be reelected (or so goes the gubernatorial campaign wisdom). About the only way to get clemency today (and it's mighty rare) is to convince the media and the public (and then the governor) that there was a horrible mistake at trial and that if you're not spared you'll be the dead innocent guy we've all been looking for.

And then there's Tookie. He might just, single-handedly, demonstrate that governor can do the right thing, can grant clemency not to fix a mistake but to save a life, and that the governor can do it without seeming like a wimp and without losing votes. Hell, Arnold 's ratings are so low that doing the right thing might even gain him some votes. And wouldn't that be something.

Mea culpa. I was Wrong. SAVE TOOKIE!

Jeffrey M. Gamso
Legal Director
ACLU of Ohio
4506 Chester Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44103e
email: jmgamso@buckeye-express.com

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_20046.shtml

Governor, let Tookie live
By Charles L. Lindner, Charles L. Lindner, past president of the Los Angeles Criminal Bar Assn., has tried many capital cases, eight of which went to the penalty phase. He has one client on death row.

(excerpt)

In the penalty phase, the jury recommends a sentence. I have argued eight death-penalty phases, and there is nothing in law more weighty and terrifying than pleading for a man's life. My opening statement is always the same:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have already determined by your guilt-phase verdict that my client will die in prison and be buried in an unmarked pauper's grave outside the prison's gates. The only remaining question is whether the defendant's death should occur at a time chosen by God, or a time chosen by you."

The evidence presented during the penalty phase is unique in law. The prosecution offers evidence of aggravating factors — why the jury should order the defendant put to death — and the defense puts forth evidence of mitigating factors — why the jury should decide in favor of life without parole. The question for the jury is often whether the defendant's life has any redeeming worth: Has this guy done anything that warrants keeping him alive?

<snip>

Ingber offered no mitigating evidence at Williams' penalty-phase trial. The California Supreme Court, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Ingber performed competently in choosing not to mount a penalty-phase defense, one suspects, because there was not much of one to present.

Schwarzenegger should seriously consider the mitigating evidence that has arisen since Williams was sentenced to death. If Ingber could have presented evidence that Williams would be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize multiple times, that he would write anti-gang children's books and negotiate the end to a gang war, it is reasonable to believe that the jury might have found sufficient value in Williams' life to spare him death.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/editorials/la-op-deathpenalty4dec04,0,2214884.story?coll=la-home-sunday-opinion

Rabbis ask Schwarzenegger to stay execution.

More than 90 California rabbis have signed a petition asking Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to pardon death-row inmate Stanley “Tookie” Williams.

The former gang member and convicted murderer, who has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to turn at-risk youths away from crime, is scheduled to be killed Dec. 13.

“While our tradition holds that murder is the worst offense,” states the petition, circulated by the Progressive Jewish Alliance, “the tradition also states that one who saves a life is considered as if he has saved an entire world.”

The petition had 93 signatures as of Sunday morning. It will be presented to Schwarzenegger’s Los Angeles office Monday

http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=277

A stupid waste
It's foolish to execute a man who represents a real opportunity to break the cycle of gang violence.

By J.T. Allen, authored the screenplay for "Redemption," starring Jamie Foxx and Lynn Whitfield.

(excerpt)

I interviewed Stan to understand him as a character. In doing so, I came to see him as a man, which is why I count myself among those who believe that his prison conversion was real. I also believe, as Father Greg Boyle, director of Homeboy Industries, has said, that Stan is "not the person he was 27 years ago, and if he is granted clemency, his impact on kids, who plan their funerals and not their futures, will continue." This is more important than most people from privileged backgrounds seem to understand — more important than I understood going into the project.

L.A. County prosecutors, among others, say "Williams deserves to die for his crimes and for helping start a gang that has claimed thousands of lives over the years." Although there is more than one account of the Crips' genesis, Stan himself says he was a co-founder of the gang, and no one, least of all him, denies that this was a bad thing.

But he's on death row because a jury convicted him of four murders, period. Justice needs to be specific. If the prosecutors want him killed for starting the Crips, they need to bring charges, go to trial and get a conviction. The truth is, a new type of street gang was emerging in Los Angeles' poor neighborhoods in the early 1970s, and a Crips-like cancer, with its culture of retaliation and blood vengeance, would have spread with or without Stan Williams.

<snip>

But the state will also be killing a man who, guilty or innocent, is now doing far more good than harm. Critics say that all this do-gooding is just a way for Stan to save his skin. My experience with the guy says no, he really does want to spare mothers and brothers the agony faced by the Owenses and Yangs.

This prisoner offers California a rare resource with which to interrupt the cycle that produces crop after crop of killer Crips. To squander that opportunity in an effort to eliminate one former Crip — who may be innocent of the murders for which he was convicted — would be plain stupid.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-redeem4dec04,0,1001830.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

California Prepares to Execute Tookie Williams - Countdown to a Legal Lynching
October 12, 2005
By Phil Gasper

(excerpt)

Williams appeal reached the Supreme Court in May, where it has been sitting ever since. A decision was originally expected last week, but the court delayed, reportedly to allow its new Chief Justice an opportunity to weigh in on the case. Now it has spoken in no uncertain terms.

Welcome to the racist Roberts’ court.

<snip>

To get the charges to stick, the prosecutor in the case, Robert Martin, used blatant racism. The trial was moved from Los Angeles to Torrance, a predominantly white, highly conservative area. All the African-Americans in the jury pool were dismissed and Stan’s case was heard by an all-white jury.

In his closing argument, Martin compared Stan in the courtroom to a Bengal tiger in the zoo, and said that “in his environment” (i.e. South Central LA) he would behave like the tiger in its “habitat.”

Despite the fact that Martin was later censured twice by the California Supreme Court for his racist practices, which led to death sentences in two of the cases he prosecuted being overturned, and despite the fact that the ACLU, the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund and numerous other groups, filed an amicus brief on Stan’s behalf, the Ninth Circuit has twice rejected the claim that his constitutional rights were violated. Now the Supreme Court has upheld these decisions.

The rest of this important article is available @ http://traprockpeace.org/phil_gasper_blog/index.php/2005/11/01/california-prepares-to-execute-tookie-williams-countdown-to-a-legal-lynching