SNL Spoofs Fox News: 2009 Elections -The End of an Era
SNL does it again like noone else can. Love their Karl Rove.
Labels: Fun Stuff
Purity Solutions
53 minutes ago
Monday, November 9, 2009
A 2d chance at freedom for juvenile offenders Supreme Court hears case today
THE UNITED States is currently the only country in the world that sentences minors who commit crimes to life in prison without any hope for parole. Soon, the Supreme Court will declare whether we change this policy.
Today, the court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, and later decide whether sentencing juveniles to life without parole for offenses not involving a homicide qualify as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The young man in one case was convicted of a sexual assault at 13; the other, of an armed burglary at 16 and a probation violation at 17.
These are serious crimes and both young men must be held accountable. The question before the court is whether they should be held accountable in a way that takes into consideration their immaturity, lack of judgment, vulnerability to peer pressure, and - perhaps most important - their capacity for redemption, growth, and change. If the court strikes down life without parole for juveniles as unconstitutional, no offender would have an automatic right to parole release. Juvenile offenders would simply be given the opportunity to appear before a parole board and make the case that they have changed and deserve another chance.
As I have seen in Haiti, in Rwanda, and in the other countries where I have lived - and in the prisons, squatter settlements, and cities, rich and poor, in which I’ve worked - people share certain innate human values. One of them is that children should be afforded greater care, protection, and forgiveness.
And when I return to the United States, I am reminded that a group of our children - some of them as young as 13 - are separated from their families and communities for the rest of their lives, even if they are later rehabilitated and no longer deemed to pose a threat to others.
Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children must not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishments, including capital punishment or life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Only two nations in the world have not ratified this convention: Somalia and the United States. It is noteworthy that sentences of life without parole for juveniles were uncommon in the United States before the 1990s, a period of fear about a potential rise in juvenile crime that was based on data later proven false.
The United States stands apart from its European allies in perpetuating this violation of human rights. In Italy, the maximum sentence for a person under 18 for any crime is 24 years. In Germany, it is 10 years. In England and Wales, judges must impose a sentence that is roughly half the term that an adult would be given in the same circumstances. The English law is particularly instructive, given the historic ties between the two countries and the fact that American law is largely derived from England’s. In fact, the Eighth Amendment traces its roots to the Magna Carta.
There are those who argue that international laws and norms should have no bearing on how the United States decides to dispense justice. But having treated thousands of children all over the world, I can say with confidence that American children are not more vicious, less human, or less deserving of mercy and compassion than children in any other country. Every other nation in the world finds ways to hold young people accountable for their actions without sentencing them to languish in prison until they die. The United States must do the same for its children.
Labels: Criminal JustUs System
Solo Who Made Obscene Gesture Before Judge Loses Appeal
Ok so you can't do this!!
Adam Reposa, the Austin, Texas, criminal defense solo who made a gesture simulating masturbation toward a prosecutor while standing before Travis County Court-at-Law No. 6 Judge Jan Breland, faces 90 days in jail. In an 8-1 decision Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reposa's application for a writ of habeas corpus in his contempt case.
Judge Lawrence Meyers, the lone dissenter in Ex Parte Adam Reposa, did not write an opinion. The CCA's unpublished opinion, written by Judge Paul Womack, presents the following summary of Breland's testimony at Reposa's contempt hearing: On March 11, 2008, Reposa appeared as counsel for a defendant in a criminal case in Breland's court. Breland asked Reposa to stop whispering to his client while she was trying to explain a plea offer to the client. After the prosecutor, Assistant County Attorney Bill Swaim, protested about Reposa's continued whispering, Reposa made the simulated masturbation gesture toward the prosecutor while looking at Breland.
Acting on Swaim's motion, Breland held Reposa in contempt. Senior Judge Paul Davis of Austin, sitting by assignment, subsequently found Reposa guilty of contempt and sentenced him to 90 days in jail. Reposa appealed to the CCA on June 2, 2008. The CCA had set bail for Reposa pending the disposition of his case.
In its decision Wednesday, the CCA overruled Reposa's five issues challenging the judgment of contempt and sentence. With regard to Reposa's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Womack wrote for the majority, "Regardless of the fact that the gesture was not directed at Judge Breland, it nevertheless was a purposeful act of disrespect and an affront to the dignity of the court. As such, it rises to the level of criminal contempt."
Swaim declines comment on the CCA's decision.
When told of the CCA's decision, Reposa said, "Oh well." When asked what happens next, Reposa says he doesn't know. "I need to talk to my lawyer," he says.
Karyl Krug, who represents Reposa in the habeas corpus writ application, says she is surprised the CCA issued an unpublished opinion in a case involving issues of first impression. As noted in the CCA's opinion, Reposa had argued that the case was one of first impression because of the "extreme ‘extraneousness'" of evidence presented at the contempt hearing, including the introduction of Whoopsy!, a magazine distributed in Austin night clubs that featured an apparently satirical ad by a lawyer identified as "Bulletproof, the DWI stud." Reposa identifies himself as Adam "Bulletproof" Reposa on the State Bar of Texas Web site.
Krug says Reposa can file a motion for rehearing with the CCA but that there has been no decision to do so. Travis County Attorney David Escamilla says, "The real take-away from this legal saga goes beyond what happens to this lawyer. It's a sobering reminder to our profession that the standards of decorum in our courts apply to everyone -- defendants, victims, witnesses and lawyers."
Adam Reposa, the Austin, Texas, criminal defense solo who made a gesture simulating masturbation toward a prosecutor while standing before Travis County Court-at-Law No. 6 Judge Jan Breland, faces 90 days in jail. In an 8-1 decision Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reposa's application for a writ of habeas corpus in his contempt case.
Judge Lawrence Meyers, the lone dissenter in Ex Parte Adam Reposa, did not write an opinion. The CCA's unpublished opinion, written by Judge Paul Womack, presents the following summary of Breland's testimony at Reposa's contempt hearing: On March 11, 2008, Reposa appeared as counsel for a defendant in a criminal case in Breland's court. Breland asked Reposa to stop whispering to his client while she was trying to explain a plea offer to the client. After the prosecutor, Assistant County Attorney Bill Swaim, protested about Reposa's continued whispering, Reposa made the simulated masturbation gesture toward the prosecutor while looking at Breland.
Acting on Swaim's motion, Breland held Reposa in contempt. Senior Judge Paul Davis of Austin, sitting by assignment, subsequently found Reposa guilty of contempt and sentenced him to 90 days in jail. Reposa appealed to the CCA on June 2, 2008. The CCA had set bail for Reposa pending the disposition of his case.
In its decision Wednesday, the CCA overruled Reposa's five issues challenging the judgment of contempt and sentence. With regard to Reposa's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Womack wrote for the majority, "Regardless of the fact that the gesture was not directed at Judge Breland, it nevertheless was a purposeful act of disrespect and an affront to the dignity of the court. As such, it rises to the level of criminal contempt."
Swaim declines comment on the CCA's decision.
When told of the CCA's decision, Reposa said, "Oh well." When asked what happens next, Reposa says he doesn't know. "I need to talk to my lawyer," he says.
Karyl Krug, who represents Reposa in the habeas corpus writ application, says she is surprised the CCA issued an unpublished opinion in a case involving issues of first impression. As noted in the CCA's opinion, Reposa had argued that the case was one of first impression because of the "extreme ‘extraneousness'" of evidence presented at the contempt hearing, including the introduction of Whoopsy!, a magazine distributed in Austin night clubs that featured an apparently satirical ad by a lawyer identified as "Bulletproof, the DWI stud." Reposa identifies himself as Adam "Bulletproof" Reposa on the State Bar of Texas Web site.
Krug says Reposa can file a motion for rehearing with the CCA but that there has been no decision to do so. Travis County Attorney David Escamilla says, "The real take-away from this legal saga goes beyond what happens to this lawyer. It's a sobering reminder to our profession that the standards of decorum in our courts apply to everyone -- defendants, victims, witnesses and lawyers."
Labels: Lawyers
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
DIOCESE OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN BEGINS BISHOP SEARCH PROCESS
DIOCESE OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN BEGINS BISHOP SEARCH PROCESS
Annual Convention Discusses Past Year, Passes New Resolution
MARQUETTE, Mi., November 2, 2009—
The Diocese of Northern Michigan approved a new process for selecting its next bishop at its recently concluded convention at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Escanaba, Mi.
After lengthy discussion, the convention approved a resolution that adopted a search plan that includes:
After lengthy discussion, the convention approved a resolution that adopted a search plan that includes:
Forming a search committee engaged in discernment;
Building on the work of the previous search committee (known as the Episcopal Ministry Discernment Team);
Communicating effectively with the wider church;
Exploring the possibility of working with a search consultant;
Using a broad process to collect the names of potential candidates;
Intending to present multiple candidates to the electing convention;
Using the petition process for adding names to the slate.An amendment to remove the petition process from the search was defeated after two visitors—the Rt. Rev. William D. Persell, retired Bishop of Chicago and assisting bishop in the Diocese of Ohio, and the Rev. Canon Cindy Voorhees of the Diocese of Los Angeles—urged the delegates to preserve the right to submit petition nominees.“The petition process provides insurance against a search process gone awry,” said Bishop Persell. “It also provides assurance to the wider church that you intend to elect your next bishop in an open and transparent way.”
The search committee will be comprised of two members selected by each of the diocese’s four geographic regions; one member from the Diocesan Council; and one from the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee may also appoint up to three members to ensure that the search committee is representative of the diocese. The search committee will likely begin its work in February 2010.
Persell and Voorhees were among five visitors from across the Church who attended the convention to offer support to the diocese, which has been without a bishop since the Rt. Rev. James Kelsey was killed in an automobile accident while returning from a visitation in June 2007.
The diocese’s previous search for a bishop ended in July when the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, a priest of the diocese, did not receive the necessary consents from the wider Church.
Bishop Tom Ray, who preceded Bishop Kelsey, now serves as Northern Michigan’s assisting bishop. “Bishop Ray has been our rock through all of this,” said Linda Piper, chair of the diocese’s Standing Committee.
On the first night of the convention, the Very Rev. Ernesto Medina, Dean for Urban Mission at Trinity Cathedral in Omaha and clergy deputy from the Diocese of Nebraska, led the convention in a process he developed called “Authority of Generations.” Convention attendees, in small groups, told stories and sang hymns that answered the question, “Where have you experienced God in the past year?” In summarizing the stories told, Medina said, “Fear and painful losses lead to calmness, and to God being present in the transitions of our life. Through our loss we find God’s spirit speaking through us.”
Dr. Fredrica Harris Thompsett, Mary Wolfe Professor Emerita of Historical Theology at Episcopal Divinity School, was the convention’s chaplain.
The Diocese of Northern Michigan, founded in 1895, comprises 27 congregations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. For more information about the diocese, please visit the diocesan website.
Labels: Episcopal Church
Tale of two homicides: Questions raised about conduct of Wayne County Prosecutor's Office
Dwayne Provience is doing 32 to 62 years in prison for the 2000 murder of Rene Hunter, who was gunned down at a northwest Detroit intersection.
But now, as Provience attempts to win his freedom, his attorneys are pointing to the fact that, in 2003, the Wayne County Prosecutor's office argued in a second but apparently related murder trial that it was two other men who killed Hunter.
"It's awfully distressing that nobody in the Prosecutor's Office apparently went back and asked, ‘What happened in this first murder while we're prosecuting the second?' and saw, ‘Hey. We argued something different,'" says David Moran, co-director of the Innocence Clinic at University of Michigan Law School who now represents Provience. "I would hope that if that had been done they would have thought to contact Provience's lawyers and say, ‘We think we have some different information.' You would hope that would've happened."
But it didn't.
And this year, thanks to the mother of the convicted shooter in that second case, Provience's attorneys have obtained Detroit police records showing that, within weeks of the killing, investigators suspected other men in Hunter's death.
These records were not provided to Provience's defense attorney during the discovery phase of his trial, according to court filings.
Provience, who is currently in the Handlon Correctional Facility in mid-Michigan, will be in court Tuesday, Nov. 3, in front of Wayne County Circuit Judge Timothy Kenny as he attempts to have his conviction set aside.
In a 2001 bench trial, Kenny acquitted Provience's brother, De-Al Provience, of driving the car from which Hunter was shot, though he denied an earlier motion from Dwayne Provience to have his conviction overturned.
Maria Miller, spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor's office, declined to comment on the case to Metro Times this week.
"But we will be presenting evidence in court next week," Miller says. "Until the conclusion of this matter we are limited in what we can say out of court."
However, in court filings, prosecutors defend their office's past actions as they continue their fight to keep Provience imprisoned.
Murder one
Three months after Hunter was gunned down at the intersection of Pembroke Avenue and Greenfield Road, Detroit police questioned a man named Larry Wiley about an unrelated burglary. Wiley, an admitted drug addict, told police he had seen Dwayne and his brother De-Al shoot and kill Hunter. The Proviences, Wiley said, fled westbound on Pembroke in a beige or yellow Buick Regal.
According to court filings, police had statements from at least seven other eyewitnesses — Moran says one was an off-duty police officer — taken within hours of the shooting. All the other witnesses contradicted Wiley, saying the car was gray, and that it left the scene by going northbound on Greenfield. Some witnesses identified the car as a Chevrolet Caprice.
At Dwayne Provience's January 2001 trial, the prosecution subpoenaed only one of those seven witnesses and he failed to show. Provience's trial attorney, Reginald Hamilton, did not call the other six.
Based in large part on Wiley's testimony, Provience was convicted, sentenced a month later and has been in prison since, unsuccessfully filing state and federal appeals, often representing himself.
In 2003, Hamilton lost his law license after the Attorney Discipline Board found he had abandoned representation of two other clients and failed to refund the unearned portion of their attorney's fees.
After Moran's clinic took Provience's case this year, it was discovered that Wayne County prosecutors had argued a completely different theory of Hunter's murder while investigating and trying a second killing.
"Shifting theories is like changing clothes to them, and it's a little disturbing," Moran says.
In addition, Wiley has flip-flopped his testimony. He told Provience's attorneys earlier this year that he lied when testifying that he saw the Proviences kill Hunter. A polygraph test supported that recantation. But when an investigator for prosecutors interviewed him earlier this year, he stood by his original claim that the Proviences were responsible for the murder. He refused to testify at a hearing for Provience earlier this year, claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, according to court records.
Murder two
Just a month after Hunter's murder, Courtney Irving was shot and killed less than a mile away. The case remained unsolved for two years until a multi-jurisdictional task force re-investigated it and found witnesses who identified Eric Woods as the shooter.
After he was arrested in 2002, Woods admitted in a written statement that he killed Irving.
Woods claimed, however, that he was coerced into committing the murder, alleging that brothers Antrimone ‘Terry' Mosley and Sorrell ‘Reddy' Mosley told him they wanted him dead because they thought he stole drugs and money from them. But they said they'd let him live if he killed Irving, according to a statement he gave police.
This is where that case ties in with the murder of Rene Hunter, who, according to Woods, was actually killed by the Mosley brothers because they believed he had robbed them.
The brothers then became worried that Irving was going to finger them for the Hunter murder, and offered Woods a deal, saying he would be spared in return for killing the suspected, would-be snitch, Woods alleged.
At Woods' trial for Irving's murder in 2003, then-Wayne County assistant prosecutor Eric Restuccia told jurors that it was the Mosley brothers who killed Hunter — even though Provience had been convicted of that crime two years earlier.
"The background started, in part, ... when Rene Hunter was murdered," Restuccia told jurors in his closing argument. "... Rene Hunter, Mr. Irving and Mr. Woods, they had all been friends. Mr. Irving was going to go to the police and tell them about the Mosleys' connection to this crime [Hunter's killing.]"
Restuccia currently is Michigan's solicitor general, representing the state before the Supreme Court. He was appointed by Attorney General Mike Cox, who was the head of homicide for the Wayne County Prosecutor's office during the investigations of the Hunter and Irving killings. Restuccia did not respond to a Metro Times request for an interview.
Woods is now in the Alger Correctional Facility in the Upper Peninsula serving a life sentence for Irving's murder. He filed a petition in U.S. District Court seeking his release, which Judge George Steeh denied in March.
In his opinion, Steeh wrote, "The prosecution's theory at trial was that Woods and his friends [the Mosley brothers] were friends of Irving. ... According to the prosecution, the Mosley brothers were involved in a murder ... of an individual named Rene Hunter."
One of the Mosley brothers is dead, according to Moran, and the other lives out of state.
The notes
As co-director of the Innocence Clinic, Moran oversees the work of law students who work on wrongful conviction cases that don't have DNA evidence. The students research, investigate and argue in court for defendants they believe are innocent of the crimes of which they've been convicted.
One of the students found Steeh's opinion in the Woods case and realized it could help their client, since it showed the prosecution had presented a different theory of the Hunter killing in a different trial. While doing more research, one of the law students met Woods' mother, who provided potential evidence neither Provience nor any of his attorneys had seen.
"The investigative reports explicitly tie the murder of Courtney Irving to that of Rene Hunter," Provience's attorneys wrote in court filings. The two pages of "Progress Notes" were written between April 24 and May 15, 2000, and the names of two Detroit police sergeants appear on the reports, one of whom was the officer in charge at Provience's trial.
The notes describe the Mosleys' drug operation, and how shortly before Hunter was killed, the Mosleys left their home in a gray Caprice following him.
The "homicide files are joined at the hip because the two complainants were together when Rene got killed and Courtney was going to tell who and why they killed Rene," the notes read.
Provience's attorneys argue the failure of police or prosecutors to provide the notes to Provience's original defense is a violation of the due process clause that requires the sharing of exculpatory evidence before trial.
Prosecutors argue they did not suppress the evidence. "Documents were in the prosecution's file and defense counsel had access to that file and could have inspected it," they wrote in a court filing last month.
Provience's trial lawyer, Hamilton, filed an affidavit last month saying that he had never seen the "progress notes" and that he did not know Detroit police had information implicating the Mosleys in Hunter's death.
Gail Rodwan, a lawyer with the State Appellate Defender Office, handled Provience's unsuccessful appeal in state courts in 2001, following his conviction. She filed an affidavit last month in Provience's motion to set aside his conviction stating she had no knowledge of the case against Woods or of the prosecution's alleged connection between Provience and Woods when she represented Provience. She declined to discuss the case with Metro Times, citing her probable testimony at the Nov. 3 evidentiary hearing.
How the Wayne County prosecutor's office could seek two convictions using materially inconsistent theories is something attorneys may have to explain to Judge Kenny at Tuesday's hearing.
Moran, meanwhile, says he wonders about matters not covered in the court records.
"The real question is, why do they keep fighting us?" he says.
But now, as Provience attempts to win his freedom, his attorneys are pointing to the fact that, in 2003, the Wayne County Prosecutor's office argued in a second but apparently related murder trial that it was two other men who killed Hunter.
"It's awfully distressing that nobody in the Prosecutor's Office apparently went back and asked, ‘What happened in this first murder while we're prosecuting the second?' and saw, ‘Hey. We argued something different,'" says David Moran, co-director of the Innocence Clinic at University of Michigan Law School who now represents Provience. "I would hope that if that had been done they would have thought to contact Provience's lawyers and say, ‘We think we have some different information.' You would hope that would've happened."
But it didn't.
And this year, thanks to the mother of the convicted shooter in that second case, Provience's attorneys have obtained Detroit police records showing that, within weeks of the killing, investigators suspected other men in Hunter's death.
These records were not provided to Provience's defense attorney during the discovery phase of his trial, according to court filings.
Provience, who is currently in the Handlon Correctional Facility in mid-Michigan, will be in court Tuesday, Nov. 3, in front of Wayne County Circuit Judge Timothy Kenny as he attempts to have his conviction set aside.
In a 2001 bench trial, Kenny acquitted Provience's brother, De-Al Provience, of driving the car from which Hunter was shot, though he denied an earlier motion from Dwayne Provience to have his conviction overturned.
Maria Miller, spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor's office, declined to comment on the case to Metro Times this week.
"But we will be presenting evidence in court next week," Miller says. "Until the conclusion of this matter we are limited in what we can say out of court."
However, in court filings, prosecutors defend their office's past actions as they continue their fight to keep Provience imprisoned.
Murder one
Three months after Hunter was gunned down at the intersection of Pembroke Avenue and Greenfield Road, Detroit police questioned a man named Larry Wiley about an unrelated burglary. Wiley, an admitted drug addict, told police he had seen Dwayne and his brother De-Al shoot and kill Hunter. The Proviences, Wiley said, fled westbound on Pembroke in a beige or yellow Buick Regal.
According to court filings, police had statements from at least seven other eyewitnesses — Moran says one was an off-duty police officer — taken within hours of the shooting. All the other witnesses contradicted Wiley, saying the car was gray, and that it left the scene by going northbound on Greenfield. Some witnesses identified the car as a Chevrolet Caprice.
At Dwayne Provience's January 2001 trial, the prosecution subpoenaed only one of those seven witnesses and he failed to show. Provience's trial attorney, Reginald Hamilton, did not call the other six.
Based in large part on Wiley's testimony, Provience was convicted, sentenced a month later and has been in prison since, unsuccessfully filing state and federal appeals, often representing himself.
In 2003, Hamilton lost his law license after the Attorney Discipline Board found he had abandoned representation of two other clients and failed to refund the unearned portion of their attorney's fees.
After Moran's clinic took Provience's case this year, it was discovered that Wayne County prosecutors had argued a completely different theory of Hunter's murder while investigating and trying a second killing.
"Shifting theories is like changing clothes to them, and it's a little disturbing," Moran says.
In addition, Wiley has flip-flopped his testimony. He told Provience's attorneys earlier this year that he lied when testifying that he saw the Proviences kill Hunter. A polygraph test supported that recantation. But when an investigator for prosecutors interviewed him earlier this year, he stood by his original claim that the Proviences were responsible for the murder. He refused to testify at a hearing for Provience earlier this year, claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, according to court records.
Murder two
Just a month after Hunter's murder, Courtney Irving was shot and killed less than a mile away. The case remained unsolved for two years until a multi-jurisdictional task force re-investigated it and found witnesses who identified Eric Woods as the shooter.
After he was arrested in 2002, Woods admitted in a written statement that he killed Irving.
Woods claimed, however, that he was coerced into committing the murder, alleging that brothers Antrimone ‘Terry' Mosley and Sorrell ‘Reddy' Mosley told him they wanted him dead because they thought he stole drugs and money from them. But they said they'd let him live if he killed Irving, according to a statement he gave police.
This is where that case ties in with the murder of Rene Hunter, who, according to Woods, was actually killed by the Mosley brothers because they believed he had robbed them.
The brothers then became worried that Irving was going to finger them for the Hunter murder, and offered Woods a deal, saying he would be spared in return for killing the suspected, would-be snitch, Woods alleged.
At Woods' trial for Irving's murder in 2003, then-Wayne County assistant prosecutor Eric Restuccia told jurors that it was the Mosley brothers who killed Hunter — even though Provience had been convicted of that crime two years earlier.
"The background started, in part, ... when Rene Hunter was murdered," Restuccia told jurors in his closing argument. "... Rene Hunter, Mr. Irving and Mr. Woods, they had all been friends. Mr. Irving was going to go to the police and tell them about the Mosleys' connection to this crime [Hunter's killing.]"
Restuccia currently is Michigan's solicitor general, representing the state before the Supreme Court. He was appointed by Attorney General Mike Cox, who was the head of homicide for the Wayne County Prosecutor's office during the investigations of the Hunter and Irving killings. Restuccia did not respond to a Metro Times request for an interview.
Woods is now in the Alger Correctional Facility in the Upper Peninsula serving a life sentence for Irving's murder. He filed a petition in U.S. District Court seeking his release, which Judge George Steeh denied in March.
In his opinion, Steeh wrote, "The prosecution's theory at trial was that Woods and his friends [the Mosley brothers] were friends of Irving. ... According to the prosecution, the Mosley brothers were involved in a murder ... of an individual named Rene Hunter."
One of the Mosley brothers is dead, according to Moran, and the other lives out of state.
The notes
As co-director of the Innocence Clinic, Moran oversees the work of law students who work on wrongful conviction cases that don't have DNA evidence. The students research, investigate and argue in court for defendants they believe are innocent of the crimes of which they've been convicted.
One of the students found Steeh's opinion in the Woods case and realized it could help their client, since it showed the prosecution had presented a different theory of the Hunter killing in a different trial. While doing more research, one of the law students met Woods' mother, who provided potential evidence neither Provience nor any of his attorneys had seen.
"The investigative reports explicitly tie the murder of Courtney Irving to that of Rene Hunter," Provience's attorneys wrote in court filings. The two pages of "Progress Notes" were written between April 24 and May 15, 2000, and the names of two Detroit police sergeants appear on the reports, one of whom was the officer in charge at Provience's trial.
The notes describe the Mosleys' drug operation, and how shortly before Hunter was killed, the Mosleys left their home in a gray Caprice following him.
The "homicide files are joined at the hip because the two complainants were together when Rene got killed and Courtney was going to tell who and why they killed Rene," the notes read.
Provience's attorneys argue the failure of police or prosecutors to provide the notes to Provience's original defense is a violation of the due process clause that requires the sharing of exculpatory evidence before trial.
Prosecutors argue they did not suppress the evidence. "Documents were in the prosecution's file and defense counsel had access to that file and could have inspected it," they wrote in a court filing last month.
Provience's trial lawyer, Hamilton, filed an affidavit last month saying that he had never seen the "progress notes" and that he did not know Detroit police had information implicating the Mosleys in Hunter's death.
Gail Rodwan, a lawyer with the State Appellate Defender Office, handled Provience's unsuccessful appeal in state courts in 2001, following his conviction. She filed an affidavit last month in Provience's motion to set aside his conviction stating she had no knowledge of the case against Woods or of the prosecution's alleged connection between Provience and Woods when she represented Provience. She declined to discuss the case with Metro Times, citing her probable testimony at the Nov. 3 evidentiary hearing.
How the Wayne County prosecutor's office could seek two convictions using materially inconsistent theories is something attorneys may have to explain to Judge Kenny at Tuesday's hearing.
Moran, meanwhile, says he wonders about matters not covered in the court records.
"The real question is, why do they keep fighting us?" he says.
Labels: Innocence
U-M innocence project helps win convicted murderer a new trial
Detroit -- A 36-year-old man, jailed for the past eight years for a murder he says he did not commit, has been granted a new trial by a Wayne Circuit Court judge this morning and could be home with his family as early as tonight.
Dwayne Provience has been in prison since 2001, despite his consistent claims of innocence. Judge Timothy Kenny ordered a new trial, citing the prosecution's use of a less-than-credible witness.
The Innocence Project at the University of Michigan -- a litigation group that seeks to overturn incorrect convictions -- took up the case after being contacted by Provience. For his family, Tuesday's court decision was a case of the holidays coming early.
"It's like all of the holidays are happening at once," said Provience's mother, Vonzella Battle of Detroit, while crying and embracing family members outside Kenny's courtroom. "It's already Christmas."
In 2000, Rene Hunter was shot to death in Detroit, and alleged witness Larry Wiley named Provience as the shooter. Provience went to prison a year later.
"We knew from the beginning he was innocent," Battle said of her son. "We knew from the beginning it was not him. It couldn't be him."
Battle said the family will hold a welcome home party for her son once he is released. Kenny set a bond of $5,000 for Provience, and family members indicated they expected to post the 10 percent necessary to free him pending a new trial. If released, Provience will be required to wear an electronic monitoring device and live at his mother's home.
Wearing green inmate garb, a white thermal shirt and sandals, Provience stayed quiet during the proceedings, only telling the judge, "Yes, sir," when asked if he would attend future court proceedings if given bond.
A docket conference is scheduled for Nov. 24, when the prosecution and defense will meet to discuss the next step in the case. Students involved with the Innocence Project said they believed prosecutors will drop the case eventually.
In a statement issued before today's hearing, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said a new trial is merited.
"This is a prime example of why these cases require a full investigation," she said in the statement. "We agree with the defense that this evidence does entitle the defendant to a new trial. For that reason, we will not issue any further statement regarding specific facts of the case."
Provience's 15-year-old son, Dwayne and 14-year-old daughter, Alexis, attended today's hearing. Both said they could not wait until their father returns home
"I'd like to talk to him about everything," Provience's son said.
Toya Robinson, the mother of Provience's children and his ex-girlfriend, said his release will have a dramatic impact on their children
"It's more important than any words can describe," she said. "They were really close to their dad. He took them to school every day. We have been praying every day."
Labels: Innocence
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A new homophobic law in Uganda
Uganda's draconian anti-homosexuality bill has the potential to destroy thousands of lives. The church must speak up
Every day millions of Christians pray to be spared from being put to the test. For some in Uganda, where an anti-homosexuality bill (pdf) is being put to parliament, this prayer may be especially deeply felt. This extremely unpleasant proposed law targets not only lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people but also human rights and Aids prevention activists and people in positions of trust. While some in the church are backing the bill, other Christians face a challenge to the principles at the heart of their faith.
Seventeen local and international human rights groups, including Sexual Minorities Uganda, have condemned the move. "This draft bill is clearly an attempt to divide and weaken civil society by striking at one of its most marginalised groups. The government may be starting here, but who will be next?" said Scott Long of Human Rights Watch. Gay sex is already illegal in Uganda, and can result in long prison sentences. The bill broadens the definition to include any form of sexual relations between people of the same sex, which could result in life imprisonment, and threatens those guilty of "promotion of homosexuality" with up to seven years in prison, an attack on freedom of expression which would also damage Aids prevention efforts.
A new offence of "aggravated homosexuality" would carry the death penalty, covering sex with someone under 18 or who is disabled or in the case of a "serial offender". This also undermines the right of disabled adults capable of informed consent to enjoy intimate relationships, insultingly reducing them to the status of "victims". Any "person in authority" aware of an offence under the new law who did not report it to the authorities could face three years' imprisonment, including anyone who exercises "religious, political, economic or social authority". So a pastor who found out that someone in his congregation or community was gay or lesbian would be required to betray that person to possible imprisonment or death, or risk his own freedom. The bill would not only destroy LGBT people but also undermine others' integrity and humanity.
The law would apply not only within Uganda but also to Ugandans abroad. Some commentators believe it is being used to divert attention from ongoing social problems and intensify repression in the run-up to the next elections.
The bill is a particular challenge for Christians because clergy have helped to whip up fear and hatred and undermine respect for human rights. Nicodemus Okille, Dean of the Province of Uganda, in his Christmas sermon in 2007 as Bishop of Bukedi, reportedly condemned advocates of gay rights as having no place in the kingdom of God. "The team of homosexuals is very rich," claimed Archbishop Henry Orombi in 2008. "They have money and will do whatever it takes to make sure that this vice penetrates Africa. We have to stand out and say no to them." However Anglican Bishop Stanley Ntagali of Masindi-Kitara diocese has recently spoken out against the death penalty for homosexuality, while supporting imprisonment.
The bill also poses a challenge to those throughout the world with economic, social or political links to Uganda. This includes Christian leaders overseas who have helped to give credibility to homophobic Ugandan bishops and pastors while supposedly proclaiming a message of love and justice for all. Some US evangelists have endorsed Pastor Martin Ssempa, an anti-LGBT crusader. Anglican leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have avoided challenging their Ugandan associates' complicity in anti-LGBT abuses while soundly condemning Anglican provinces moving towards equality for all.
Sixty years ago, the Anglican Communion was at the forefront of the drive for universal human rights. Though commitment to rights for all, including LGBT people, has been repeatedly endorsed at international gatherings, and many churches are passionately committed, it now tends to be referred to in vague terms by top leaders. But they will have to decide how to respond to this legislation, especially since their own Ugandan-born clergy and parishioners will be affected. What they do, or fail to do, will affect their ability to witness to a God who does not abandon the abused and exploited. These are testing times.
Labels: Episcopal Church
Episcopal Dissenters: It’s OK to Hate Gays
by Tommi Avicolli-Mecca‚ Oct. 27‚ 2009
Even when a religious denomination is trying to make right of a centuries-old wrong, you can count on some of its followers to run screaming in the opposite direction. Such is the case with the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, which is based in Charleston.
The Diocese, which covers the southern and eastern half of the state, recently voted to not only oppose its mother church’s decision to ordain gay priests and bless gay marriages, but also to cease participation in most of the national group’s activities.
It’s a severing of ties but not quite a split, more like a protest against what the dissenting conservatives see as “assenting to actions deemed contrary to holy scripture...until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions.”
"The only model that's been out there for us has either been leave or acquiesce, and that hasn't been working," the Diocese’s Bishop Mark Lawrence told the Associated Press. "We need to get the 30,000 members of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina awakened to the challenges before us. ... Once we have done that, then the question is how do we engage the larger Episcopal Church?"
The South Carolina Diocese is not the first to express its extreme displeasure with its church’s pro-gay actions. Almost a year-and-a-half ago, four dioceses formed the Anglican Church in North America, a new national group. Other anti-gay parishes have since joined.
The unhappy South Carolina Episcopalians also rejected a resolution putting the Diocese on record against anti-gay discrimination. “This Diocese will not condone or deny the dignity of any person, including but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered,” the unsuccessful resolution read.
So the bigots in the Diocese of South Carolina aren’t even willing to temper their anti-gay stance on ordination and marriage with a statement that they value the worth and dignity of all human beings, including queers?
Why try to dress up prejudice with liberal talk about the dignity of people you hate? Why say you love the sin and hate the sinner, when, in reality, you hate the sinner, too.
It’s obvious that these South Carolina Episcopalians are intolerant. They don’t want their clergy to be out queers, and they don’t want gay marriage recognized in any way, shape or form. They want their church the way it used to be, unanimous in its condemnation of queers. They obviously long for the bad old days when “the love that dare not speak its name” had steel doors on its closet, and anyone caught doing what comes naturally was thrown in jail.
At least they’re honest bigots.
Tommi Avicolli Mecca is co-editor of Avanti Popolo: Italians Sailing Beyond Columbus, and editor of Smash the Church, Smash the State: The Early Years of Gay Liberation, which has been nominated for an American Library Association award. His website is www.avicollimecca.com.
Labels: Episcopal Church
Texas Religious Leaders Asked, "Is the Death Penalty Immoral?"
The storm over the Cameron Todd Willingham case has focused publicattention on the death penalty and stirred debate in the Texas governor'srace. Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting a fire that killed histhree children. He maintained until his death that he was innocent, andevidence in the case presents a mixed picture. Several independent expertshave challenged whether it was arson. The governor and the prosecutor areconfident he was guilty.
In Texas, more than 400 people have been executed since capital punishmentwas reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976. Ours is the busiest deathchamber in the nation - and Texans overwhelmingly back the death penalty.Polls indicate that nearly three-quarters of Texans support capitalpunishment.
What is the moral dimension? Supporters say the question is not whetherthe state is justified in taking a life, but when - for example, inself-defense or in order to save someone else's life. There is theargument of deterrence. And justice - "an eye for an eye."
Opponents make two arguments: 1) the death penalty is immoral and 2) thedeath penalty is flawed because an innocent person could be put to death.
So here's the question: Is it moral to support capital punishment? Or areTexans immoral because they support the death penalty?
The responses from our Texas Faith panelists are varied, provocative and well worth reading amid this political and faith-based debate:
JOE CLIFFORD, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Dallas
Jesus was once asked his opinion on the death penalty when a woman was caught in adultery, a capital offense in his day. (I've always wondered where the man was in this story!) Jesus responded, "Go ahead and stone her ... just let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." No one could; which is to say no one is moral enough to impose the death penalty.
Having said that, I could not tell the relatives of a murder victim they are immoral because they support the death penalty for the person who killed their loved one. They don't want to hear statistics about the ineffectiveness of capital punishment in deterring crime, nor how economics affect the equity of our system. They don't care that racism distorts the justice system as in Texas, 12% of the population is African American, but 40% of death row inmates are black. They don't care that innocent people might be executed in the name of expediency. They just want justice for their loved one. I can't say that's immoral.
However, killing the killer will not provide that justice. It cannot fill the void created by the immoral act of murder. Rather, for all the reasons listed above it compounds the immorality. Therefore I cannot support capital punishment.
DARRELL BOCK, Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
Capital punishment? Only in extremely clear cases for very grievous crimes. If there is any doubt at all about the evidence, it should not be instituted. Judges should be given latitude here as legal experts. The dignity of human life is precious, which is why its application should be limited. But disregard for human life should result in risk of losing one's life as one who does not respect the community that requires respect for life to function. The fact that Scripture has the category means it is not immoral. Mass murders and other intentional violent crimes designed to take several lives should be on that list. This is not revenge, but a form of corporate justice. Taking multiple lives intentionally reflects a lack of respect for human life.
DEAL HUDSON, President of Morley Publishing Group and Director of Inside Catholic.com
I'm not going to call anyone "immoral" because they support the death penalty. It was only a short time ago John Paul II revised the Catholic Church's teaching on that issue. Until that time I supported the death penalty, but upon reading the argument in the Holy Father's "The Gospel of Life" I was convinced that "bloodless means" should be used whenever the common good can be protected without taking a life. I don't think the notion of retribution is a safe one to invoke -- there are too many subjective elements. Although it is legitimate for a murderer to pay the "price" of his or her crime, the main consideration should be protecting others from potential harm. It seems to me that a life sentence, without parole, fits both criteria. All states should have a true, life without parole, sentence for first degree murder. Otherwise, states are encouraging the use of the death penalty by prosecutors and jurors who don't trust parole boards.Texans are no more immoral than folks from other states, with or without a death penalty, though I know many Texans who are proud of their purported immorality, which they revel in.
GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound
The issue of the death penalty being immoral has come up in Jewish tradition, but only obliquely, and ends up expressing itself through mostly through the second issue. Given that the Torah itself imposes capital punishment for some offenses, there have been few direct attacks on the intrinsic morality of judicial execution. Rather, in elaborating on the spase criminal procedures provided by the Torah, the Talmud surrounds the issue with a flurry of witness and procedural requirements that effectively limit, if not utterly prevent, a capital conviction. Thus, for example, for the death penalty to be imposed, there have to be two eye witnesses to the murder, both witnesses have to have direct, unhindered view of the act as it is committed, and one has to offer a warning to the perpetrator to the effect of "Hey, don't you know what you are doing is wrong?" The tension between sages on this issue is evident in a reported discussion where Rabbi Akiba declares a court with but one execution on its record in seventy years should be considered a "bloodthirsty court." Another Sage laments this attitude, claiming it encourages the proliferation of murderers among the people. History has also had a hand in shaping Jewish attitudes. In many medieval lands, the power of execution was taken from the jurisdiction of Jewish courts. In modern states, also, the power of execution is reserved for state courts. The end result is that many modern Jews now reject capital punishment in principle as well as in practice. In the modern State of Israel, execution is a penalty reserved for those guilty of crimes against humanity, and has only been carried once in it's 60 year history. The run of the mill terrorist/mass-murderer faces a life behind bars, but not death at the hands of an Israeli court. The Talmud understands the unique nature of capital punishment, that it is a penalty which, wrongly administered, cannot later be corrected or compensated. Given the now-well-documented record of false convictions in Texas, it seems to me the moral response is to suspend all executions until a fairer, bettered safe-guarded, radically reformed system can created. Which, the way things go, means an end to the death penalty for the foreseeable future.
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
A brief clarification is in order. It is not precisely correct to say that "Texans ...support the death penalty," although it is almost certainly true that a majority of Texans do and it is without question that the controlling forces in state politics do. Let me be clear in stating that I am a Texan who does not support the death penalty.
The problem is that two moral virtues are in conflict with each other. One is the standard of justice which declares that the only appropriate way to balance the evil of taking another's person's life is to have someone who commits a murder lose his or her own life. The second is the standard of justice which declares that the only appropriate way to be sure that errors in judgment are correctable is to avoid making judgments that are permanent and uncorrectable.
From the perspective of the first moral virtue, the only appropriate punishment for one who commits murder is to kill the murderer. From the perspective of the second moral virtue, the only appropriate way to make absolutely sure that no one falsely accused of murder is being killed is to use some punishment short of death.
When two moral virtues are in conflict, Christians must choose the one that inflicts less harm. In my view, punishment short of the death penalty inflicts less harm--to the perpetrator who may be falsely accused and to the society that claims a right to inflict the ultimate penalty even though its judgments may only be penultimate at best.
NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, Minister ISKCON Hare Krishna Temple, Dallas
Everything has its proper utility, and a man who is situated in complete knowledge of the self knows how and where to apply a thing for its proper utility. Similarly, violence also has its utility, and how to apply violence rests with the person in full knowledge of the eternality of the self. Although the justice of the peace awards capital punishment to a person condemned for murder, the justice of the peace cannot be blamed, because he orders violence to another person according to the codes of justice. In the Vedic scriptures it is supported that a murderer should be condemned to death so that in his next life he will not have to suffer for the great sin he has committed. Therefore, the government's punishment of hanging a murderer is actually beneficial. Such a sinful person who has murdered is better suffering in this life rather than greater sufferings in his next lives. A surgical operation is not meant to kill the patient, but to cure him.
Capital punishment also stands as a powerful deterrent for future criminals. Politicians, afraid of being implicated in their own laws, often shy away from a strong stance.
AMY MARTIN, Executive Director of Earth Rhythms and editor Moonlady Media
There is absolutely nothing in the Tao Teh Ching that supports capital punishment. Leaders are mandated to protect the people. But once a violent criminal is removed from society, the people are protected. The state's job is done. Nothing else need occur but to let "wu wei," the inherent way of nature, to take its course on the criminal until they age out and die.
If the crime warrants the most severe of punishments, isn't it far worse to fester in jail for a lifetime? Create the possibility of atonement by lining the jail cell with photos of the criminal's victims, or piping in audio of the victims' survivors relating their anguish. Let's get creative about it. Brutishness is so last millennium.
Fairness is a central value of Taoism. If Cameron Todd Willingham is executed for arson that kills children, then why don't we execute ALL arsonists who kill children? Why execute the bomber who kills dozens of people, but not the serial rapist who murders a score of women? Of course, then the state would be in the business of killing LOTS of people, much like countries whose criminal justice systems we consider barbaric. The decision to apply the death penalty centers at least partly on the sympathetic worth of the victim. Why are some victims rated higher than others?
It doesn't logically seem that the death penalty would be a deterrent to heinous crimes. Criminals who commit such acts consider themselves too smart to get caught, or the crime is done while they were high on drugs or emotions and the potential of the death penalty never crossed their minds. If it were a deterrent, states with the death penalty would have lower murder rates, but that's not the case.
People who support the death penalty are reacting emotionally and haven't thought it through with the higher mind. But really, who are we to play God? Shouldn't we be conservative in all matters that end in death? It's not a mistake we can fix. How can we rationalize that the death penalty is disproportionately applied to minorities, the mentally ill and poor?
Eye-for-an-eye vengeance sets up a never-ending cycle of retribution, one that some global areas are still mired in. It sends the message that murder for vengeance is an acceptable concept. Surely we are above all that by now. But alas, not Texas. Lone Star comedian Ron White wryly observed, "Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. Mine's putting in an express lane."
CYNTHIA RIGBY, Professor of Theology, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
I know my response to this question will be controversial, but I believe capital punishment is immoral. As a Christian believer, it is my conviction that God is a God of justice, but that the justice of God is grounded not in a literalistic "eye for an eye," but in God's grace and God's mercy. (Interestingly, btw, a strong case can be made that the "eye for an eye" rule of the Old Testament was not as much about demanding equitable retribution for crimes that had been committed, but for protecting the perpetrator from being OVERPENALIZED for his or her crime. In other words, if one person puts out the eye of another, the most that can be taken from the guilty one is an eye - not both eyes, not a leg, not a life, but "only" an eye).
While I am tempted to launch into a lengthy theological discourse about the relationship between justice and mercy in various New Testament texts, let me spare everyone and instead put forward two "scenes" from my own heritage and life that have fed my reflection on the death penalty. The first has to do with remembering my maternal grandfather, Frederick Goddard, whom I never knew. Goddard was a Salvation Army preacher in Macalaster, Oklahoma, in the 1930s and 40s (long before "DNA evidence"). He died when my mom was only twelve years old. One of the ministries to which he was most committed was sitting with prisoners who were on death row. He frequently walked them to their deaths. And one of the most salient memories my mother has of him is how haunted he was not only by the deaths of these men, but by his belief that some were innocent. My mother (who is hardly ever visibly shaken) is still visibly shaken when she recalls the time her father announced, one evening, that a man he had walked to the death chamber the week prior had too late been found to be innocent.
My second "scene" is from 11 years ago, shortly before the execution of Karla Faye Tucker. You might remember that the late '90s was the time when the "WWJD?" ("What Would Jesus Do?") movement was in full swing. In a class I was teaching, I asked my mainly-mainliner seminary students if they saw any value to "WWJD?," and if they thought we should do what Jesus would do, if we were pretty clear on exactly what that was. Every student in the class (20+, as I recall) answered, emphatically, "yes!!"
Since the biggest issue in the news that week was that Tucker was asking for a stay of execution, I spontaneously asked: "Would JESUS execute Karla Faye Tucker?" "No!" all the students answered. Feeling like I was on a roll, I then asked, "Well, then: should WE execute Karla Faye Tucker?"
Silence in response to a question that I thought was a no-brainer, in light of the conversation. Suddenly, the mood of the class shifted. My students acted indignant; as though they had been betrayed. A senior student shot his hand in the air, declaring that he thought it would be "presumptuous for us to assume we could do what Jesus should do." "We need a new question," he said: "WWJWUTD?" "What would Jesus want us to do?" he asked, looking around at his classmates. And then he answered: "Jesus would want us to leave forgiveness to him, and to
EXECUTE Karla Faye Tucker."
We took another vote, and all but 2 of my students agreed with him.
KATIE SHERROD, Independent writer/producer, Fort Worth
The Episcopal Church has consistently made clear its opposition to capital punishment, most recently on June 20, 2001 when the Executive Council - the body that governs the Episcopal Church between triennial General Conventions -- passed a resolution entitled "Recommitment to abolish the death penalty." Its wording mirrored that of statements dating back to 1958.The Episcopal Church's 1958 statement opposed capital punishment "on a theological basis that the life of an individual is of infinite worth in the sight of Almighty God; and the taking of such a human life falls within the providence of Almighty God and not within the right of Man." This position was reaffirmed at the 1969, 1979, 1991, and 2000 General Conventions. The 2001 resolution was passed in the immediate aftermath of the June 11, 2001 execution of Timothy McVeigh, the man who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. At a time when emotions were high, the church felt it was more important than ever to raise a voice in opposition to the death penalty - a hugely unpopular stance at the time.So why speak out then? Here's why: "In our baptismal covenant, we respect the dignity of every human being, and commit ourselves to strive for justice and peace among all people. The Church will continue to decry the revenge of state-sanctioned homicides. We abhor the racism and economic injustices evident in our criminal justice system." So is it moral to support the death penalty? I do not think so and for myself, I cannot support it. With the repeated discovery that our justice system has sentenced innocent people to death, it is harder than ever to justify capital punishment. Texans are at heart a fair-minded folk, and I believe eventually the faults in our system will become so glaringly apparent that even this state will realize the immorality of the death penalty.
BRIAN SCHMISEK, Dean School of Ministry, University of Dallas
Capital punishment rouses emotion like few other issues. For many, the problem is not only that a person dies, but that the state itself executes the person. As we live in a democratic republic, we the people are executing fellow human beings. Even so, many in Texas favor the death penalty. In this debate one side often points to the unrepentant malicious criminal who "deserves to die" while the other side discovers the wrongly convicted and executed.
Though the Catholic Church "does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" it also makes clear that in today's society, "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent" (Catechism of the Catholic Church §2267). In short, lifelong imprisonment is to be preferred to execution.
Our stance on the issue says more about us than about the person being executed. We are better people when we are showing compassion rather than making arguments to justify killing. Instead of arguing over who deserves to die, we would do well to argue over how to bestow compassion in a world that desperately needs it.
DANIEL KANTER, Senior Minister First Unitarian Church of Dallas
When I was a student minister in St. Louis I used to attend vigils outside the Potosi Prison on nights of executions. People of faith gathered with candles and sang "Amazing Grace" in hopes of sending a message that the death penalty is wrong and extending a global prayer of hope for us all. The Ku Klux Klan also showed up to drink beer, to blare loud music, and to cheer at the hour of execution. We said it was not moral to take a life for any crime no matter how heinous because the penalty never deters anyone bent on murder and because there are too many mistakes in the justice system. The Klan just loved revenge. As a person of faith the moral issue of justice is that all people have an equal chance at dignity. The death penalty system is too flawed to uphold this. And in the end the murder of a murderer is only momentary revenge. The best revenge is to force the criminal to face his acts for life, do reparative work, be forced to do some soul searching, and if not all that, to confront unbearable isolation and the highest level of boredom. The punishment itself is the immoral element here. We have a choice whether to stand on the sidelines and let it continue or hold up a candle and confront ourselves about this issue.
RIC DEXTER, Men's Division Chapter Leader, Nichiren Buddhist Soka Gakkai lay organization
There is debate within Buddhism about the taking of life. Theravadan canon will say 'never", even in defense of your own life. Mahayana schools vary, saying there is no justification, or self defense, the protection of others, and even saving a criminal from bringing further bad effect upon himself, are justification. Buddhist traditions agree, however, that a life should never be taken to post a warning, or as a punishment, or to satisfy a desire for vengeance.In his dialogue with Arnold Toynbee, Daisaku Ikeda explains this saying, "...life, as an absolute entity worthy of the deepest respect, must never be treated as a means of achieving anything other than life itself. When social restraint is necessary it is far better to devise a method that does not deny life. The use of the death penalty as a warning manifests a regrettable tendency that has long plagued human society. That tendency is the habit of undervaluing life."We live in a society of laws, where hopefully most of those who commit crimes are apprehended and incarcerated. In doing so we have taken the measures necessary for self defense and for the protection of others. Beyond that, a determination to inflict the penalty of death is to say that one life has value, and another does not. Buddhism teaches that all life has value.The question asked whether it is moral to support the death penalty, and if those who do are immoral. I have to ask the question differently, and each person must ask it of themselves. If I support the taking of a life, what are my reasons? If my most honest answer is that I think I will suffer less because someone else has died, or that the taking a life will satisfy my thirst for vengeance, or that causing another's death will assuage my anger, or that the life I wish to take has no value, then my cause reflects my lowest nature. The universal truth manifests itself through the effects of our thoughts, words, and actions. The effects in my life will reflect those basest energies. I will not determine to take a
life that poses no danger to myself or others. I will not ask you to do it for me.
GERALD BRITT, Vice-president of public policy, Central Dallas Ministries
I can understand the inclination of some supporters of the death penalty. There any number of people who have suffered terrible losses due to the cruelty and criminality of another human being. Society has every right to protect itself from those individuals and the probability that they may commit crimes as heinous or worse than the ones for which they are either incarcerated or for which it has been deemed that they worthy of capital punishment. In doing so the state is saying that the harm inflicted on an individual makes that person so dangerous that we can no longer risk their living among us. That is a strong statement.
As one whose family has incurred such a loss a couple of years ago, I can understand that inclination on a very personal level. The death of a loved one at someone else's hands is a horrific experience for those who are left behind. And, in our case, we know exactly who committed the murder. However, the charge against that person doesn't rise to the level of the death penalty, but we've made the conscious decision that we not only wouldn't want the death penalty imposed; the circumstances are such that we're not even seeking life imprisonment. Again, different circumstances prevail.
In other circumstances, on principle, it is extremely difficult for me to support the death penalty. My opportunity to meet with and do some work with Dallas County's exonerees, has shown me that it is indeed possible for citizens to be wrongfully convicted and incarcerated. Whether it was through shoddy police work, mistaken eyewitness identification, predatory prosecution and misconduct, a significant portion of these men's lives were taken away. They had a trial and were 'lawfully' convicted. Yet they were innocent. However tragic that circumstance is (and it is indeed), these men are getting an opportunity to rebuild their lives and reestablish themselves in society.
But I also can't help but remember that Tim Cole, a young man wrongfully incarcerated, died in prison and has been found innocent of the crime for which he was imprisoned, posthumously. These facts, make it difficult for me to believe that we have not already put to death innocent men and women. And the fact is whether it is ten, 50 or even one - we are not carefully reviewing the circumstances under which we are imposing let along applying the death penalty. And that is moral issue enough to have serious questions about it.
LARRY BETHUNE, Senior Pastor University Baptist Church, Austin
I cannot speak from other religious points of view, but from a New Testament Christian point of view, the death penalty is immoral. It has no place in a tradition which emphasizes grace, mercy, and healing from violence. At the heart of the Christian message is the belief that no person is beyond redemption in the eyes of God. Vengeance belongs to God alone, and the justice of God is filled with mercy. The death penalty demeans the society which uses it and the persons required to apply it.
The United States is one of the last nations to insist on practicing capital punishment despite strong stands taken against it by several Christian denominations. The current system is long and torturous, not only for perpetrators but for their families and especially for the families of victims. It is open for abuse, and it is always dangerous to give government the power to take life. Since life imprisonment without parole would be an equally effective means of deterrence, justice, and prevention of repeat offense, the death penalty remains a violent form of revenge unbecoming of a people who value human life. The death penalty is irretrievable; there is no remedy when the state executes an innocent person (of which there have been numerous proven cases).
The current system is broken, unequally weighted against the poor and minorities. For all these reasons, the death penalty needs to be abolished and judicial reform focused on the protection of life and the healing of victims of violence.
Labels: Death Penalty
Diocese of Fort worth to orain first woman to priesthood
Some very good news about the changes that are happening in Fort Worth.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth was long known as one of the most conservative in the Episcopal Church, and one measure was the refusal by its bishops to ordain women to the priesthood.
When a large majority of clergy and lay delegates of the diocese voted to follow Bishop Jack Iker's recommendation and leave the Episcopal Church, that split the diocese into churches leaving the denomination (most of them) and those choosing to stay.
The group choosing to stay has long wanted to ordain women to the priesthood - and that will finally happen in Fort Worth this Sunday. Deacon Susan Slaughter will be the history-maker. Details in the press release below:
Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to Ordain First Woman to Priesthood
It is with great rejoicing that we make the following announcement.
Thirty-three years after the Episcopal Church approved the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, the first woman will be ordained a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.
It is with great rejoicing that we make the following announcement.
Thirty-three years after the Episcopal Church approved the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, the first woman will be ordained a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.
At 5:00 P.M. on Sunday Nov. 15 in St. Luke's in the Meadow Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Fort Worth, the Rt. Rev. Edwin F. [Ted] Gulick Jr. will ordain Deacon Susan Slaughter to the priesthood.
She will be the first woman ordained to the priesthood in the history of the Fort Worth diocese, which was founded in 1983. The Rev. Ms. Slaughter also will be the first woman rector of a parish in the diocese. The Episcopal Church approved women's ordination to the priesthood and episcopate in 1976 and the first women were ordained priests in January 1977.
When Susan Slaughter was 8 years old, two friends, independently of each other, invited her to go to St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Houston, TX.
"I loved the liturgy, joined the junior choir and was confirmed at age 12. I was the first in my family to attend and be confirmed in the Episcopal Church," she said. She soon brought her parents and brothers into the church with her.
She graduated from Bellaire High School and received a Bachelor of Arts in Teaching in Speech Pathology and Audiology from Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, TX. She married Jerry Slaughter and then went on to get a Master of Education in Guidance and Counseling from North Texas State University in Denton, TX. Susan and Jerry each had two children when they married. When Jerry died in 2007 they had been married for 28 years. Susan has seven grandchildren.
She completed seminary training at the Anglican School of Theology, Dallas, TX and is currently enrolled in the Master of Theological Studies at Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX. For the past several years, she has served as deacon at St. Luke's in the Meadow. Her leadership and ministry helped stabilize that parish through the rocky time prior to the departure of the former bishop and other diocesan leaders and in the transition time after their departure in November 2008 and before the diocese was reorganized in February 2009.
She began sensing a call to the ordained ministry in the 1980s when she became actively involved in lay ministry at her home parish of St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Arlington, TX.
"Before initiating Stephen Ministry in my parish, I began noticing an internal struggle regarding my possible call to ordination," she said. The Stephen Ministry trains and organizes lay people to provide one-to-one Christian care to hurting people in and around their congregations.
"Before initiating Stephen Ministry in my parish, I began noticing an internal struggle regarding my possible call to ordination," she said. The Stephen Ministry trains and organizes lay people to provide one-to-one Christian care to hurting people in and around their congregations.
She talked with her rector. But no matter how supportive her rector may have been neither Bishop A. Donald Davies nor his successors Clarence Pope and Jack Iker would ordain women to the priesthood. So she developed the Stephen Ministry program, served as lay reader and server, led women's Bible studies and taught adult Christian Education.
"Believing I was particularly suited to coordinate, train and supervise Stephen Ministry, I attempted to rationalize my not pursuing ordination. When I could no longer deny the persistent drawing, I met with Bishop Pope. In my particular diocese women were not candidates for ordination to the priesthood. Once again, I tried to push aside the sense of call," she said.
After eleven years of taking seminary courses for her own edification and continuing her discernment process, she met with Jack Iker, the newly consecrated bishop.
"He pointed me in the direction of another diocese. Circumstances prevented me from entertaining the possibility of relocating," she said.
When she learned women could be ordained deacons in the Fort Worth diocese, she again tried to discern the nature of her ministry. Eventually she returned to Iker believing that her call must be to the diaconate. She was ordained a deacon on Oct. 12, 2002. But over time the realization grew that her call was to the priesthood. After Bp. Gulick was elected, she visited with him and he and the Commission on Ministry agreed she was called to the priesthood.
"It is with a deep sense of awe in the mysterious ways of our Lord that I arrive at this moment. I am filled with gratitude toward those persons, lay and clergy, who have encouraged and supported me over the years. St. Luke's in the Meadow has been especially supportive and has helped me discern more clearly my true vocation," she said.
This day was a long time coming. Indeed, had the Rev. Ms. Slaughter lived in any other diocese, she would most likely have been ordained a priest years ago. The long awaited fulfillment of her call adds a deep sweetness to the day.
History of women's ordination in diocese
The Diocese of Fort Worth was formed from the western part of the Diocese of Dallas, in part out of opposition to the ordination of women to the priesthood. The founding bishop, A. Donald Davies, and both his successors, Clarence C. Pope and Jack L. Iker, all left the Episcopal Church over women's ordination. Under those bishops, women feeling called to the priesthood either had to give up their call or leave the diocese to be ordained elsewhere. At least fifteen women have done so--and all have been invited "home" for the ordination.
The diocese reorganized after Iker's departure and elected Bishop Gulick as provisional bishop in February. Under his leadership two women priests have been licensed to serve in the diocese--the Rev. Ms. Maurine Lewis who retired to Fort Worth from the Diocese of Milwaukee in 2008 and does supply work among the displaced parishes; and the Rev. Ms. Melanie R. Barbarito, who was hired in August by All Saints Episcopal Church in Fort Worth as parochial associate for evangelism and engagement. She came to Fort Worth from the Diocese of Missouri. She is the first woman to be hired on the staff of a parish here.
But the Rev. Ms. Slaughter is the first woman from this diocese to be ordained a priest, an event that marks a historic turning point in the life of diocese and perhaps more than any other one event, signals what a new day it is in the Diocese of Fort Worth.
A second woman, Deacon ClayOla Gitane, will be ordained on Dec. 5 at Trinity Episcopal Church in Fort Worth by the Rt. Rev. Bavi Edna "Nedi" Rivera of the Diocese of Olympia. The Rev. Ms. Gitane began the process while Jack Iker was bishop. He refused to ordain women to the priesthood and so she had to leave the diocese to pursue her call. This will be the first time a female bishop has performed an episcopal act in the Diocese of Fort Worth.
Labels: Episcopal Church
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
I obviously have to cut back on the Blackberry use
I had a dream last night that I broke the screen on my blackberry storm. Dreaming about your Blackberry has to be one of the warning signs of an addiction. I didn't wake up screaming or anything but the fact that my Blackberry has snuck into my subconscious is a bit troubling.
Labels: Me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
