Death Penalty Alternatives for Arizona

Arizona Episcopal Diocese resolution against the death penalty

by

Over 600 lay and clerical delegates at their 2015 Annual Convention passed, without dissent, a resolution against Arizona’s continued use of the death penalty. The “Whereas” clauses included the usual secular rationales to end the death penalty (too expensive, discriminates against the poor and people of color, error prone, not an effective deterrent, etc).

Also included was “WHEREAS when Jesus encountered a woman about to be stoned to death, He instructed the crowd: “Let
anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” [John 8:7]

The three action steps in this resolution are detailed as follows:

  • THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Diocese of Arizona declares its opposition to capital punishment in Arizona and that this declaration be communicated to each parish, to the media and to legislators;
  • AND BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, in considering what would Jesus do, that Diocesan staff, convention attendees, clergy, and individual Arizona Episcopalians are urged to bear witness, to demonstrate and to speak out in private and in public against Arizona’s continued use of capital punishment;
  • AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the entire Arizona Episcopal church actively support (thru gathering signatures and campaigning for passage) the initiative # I-16-2016 which would repeal Arizona’s death penalty and replace it with a maximum sentence of life in prison without the option of parole.

The Least of Us

by

By Katherine Norgard, PhD., TEP

​The State of Missouri is slated to execute Ernest Lee Johnson, a 55 year old African American man with intellectual disabilities and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome on November 3, 2015.

There seems little doubt about Mr. Johnson’s guilt. He was convicted of killing three innocent, hard-working people in 1994.

Johnson has been safely confined on Missouri’s death row since he was sentenced to death in 1995. A great deal of time, resources and money have been spent reviewing Mr. Johnson’s case.

So, why does it matter now whether Mr. Johnson is executed?

Some would say, “It doesn’t.” But, it is not so simple.

The late Mother Teresa would probably say, “It does matter if we execute Mr. Johnson. His execution would diminish us all.” When visiting California’s death row, Mother Teresa is reported to have said “What you do to the least of these, you do to God.”

Clearly, Ernest Johnson is among the least of us. He has a IQ reported to be between 63-67 (with an IQ of 100 being average intelligence). Records indicate that his IQ was established at 63 when he was age 12 and he was enrolled in special education classes.

Having such a low IQ, Johnson is most likely unable to predict what might happen next or to fully understand the consequences of his behavior. He probably also has difficulty thinking in a logical or sequential manner as well as other intellectual deficiencies. He most likely requires clarification and one-to-one support to live his life.

Mother Teresa and morality aside, the law (Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and Hall v. Florida (2014) expressly prohibits the execution of people with intellectual disabilities such as Mr. Johnson’s.

There is more to the story. Mr. Johnson had further environmental strikes against him when he was born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and subsequently suffered emotional and sexual abuse during his childhood.
Prominent features of FAS include an inability to effectively problem-solve, impaired ability to plan and predict consequences, difficulty self-monitoring, impaired judgment along with other disabilities related to permanent damage to the brain’s frontal cortex as a result of FAS. Often FAS causes an individual’s intellectual disability.

Mr. Johnson is not at fault for any of these issues. He was born with these major disabilities which were exacerbated during his childhood.

I can speak personally about FAS. We adopted a little boy who later committed a horrific crime (as I describe in Hard to Place: A Crime of Alcohol. Recovery Resources Press (2006) now available on Amazon.com). After he was sentenced to death in Arizona, we tracked down his birth mother and discovered that she, like Johnson’s mother, drank alcohol during her pregnancy. My son was diagnosed with FAS when he was an adult and his death sentence was overturned and changed to life in prison.

I speak as a mother and also as a psychologist who practices in Arizona. Life in prison is called for in Mr. Johnson’s case.

The question here is not about guilt or innocence, but how we as a society respond to “the least of us”. We were not there to stop Johnson’s mother from drinking while she was pregnant or to intervene in his abuse and resulting trauma. We can be there to stop Ernest Johnson’s execution and keep society safe while he lives the remainder of his life in prison.

Norgard is a licensed psychologist in Arizona who has worked with political refugees and in substance abuse treatment facilities and works to educate the public on the issue of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Robert Murray

by

Here are excerpts from a letter we received from a man who had regularly corresponded with a prisoner:

Robert Murray died last June, I believe from natural causes.  My last letter from him, written a few months before his death, was the first that I had had from him for several months.  He excused his apparent apathy with a lengthy description of cancer treatments that he had been receiving during that period.  I believe the death was from cancer.  His last letter sounded as if he was in a very bad way physically.  Further, the listing of executions over the last few years did not list him.

The entire experience of knowing and visiting Robert was rewarding intellectually, though emotionally disturbing on occasion.  Rewarding because I was suddenly viewing “life” (whatever that means when separated from a biological meaning) from a broadened perspective that I would never have tried to do before Robert.  Disturbing in the grand scene because it forced the question of capital punishment upon me in a way that I could not ignore.  Disturbing in the small scene because I did not keep the correspondence going with the vigor it deserved.  Also disturbing because it forces a feeling of guilt of omission upon me.  Not just for my apathy, but also for my failure to help him financially to hire a typist for one of his book manuscripts.  This particular manuscript was an autobiographical retrospective on how he had ended up on death row.  From the handwritten table of contents that he sent me, I believe that he had built the entire book on the notion of “bad decisions” that he had made.  Taken this way, the book might have had value as a lesson to many young folks.  In spite of my confusion of feelings, thanks for arranging the experience for me.

‘Capital Punishment’ in Reality is Murder

by Leave a Comment

A recent letter to the editor in the Arizona Daily Star raises the question of what capital punishment really is:

It’s called capital punishment, and it meets all of the criteria for first-degree murder: “intentionally causing the death of another human being with special intent to kill, premeditation and deliberation,” except that it is, sadly, not unlawful. How can we call ourselves a “civilized” nation? I once had a bumper sticker that said it all: Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

You can read the letter to the editor by following this link.

Arizona’s Barbaric Death Penalty Has Got to Go

by

Dan Peitzmeyer, President of Death Penalty Alternatives for Arizona, recently wrote an editorial in response to an exchange between Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted and County Attorney Bill Montgomery on the question of repealing Arizona’s death penalty.  Dan wrote:

“Arizonans will be proud of our leadership for displaying courage to the nation and the world as we join the other 32 states and most of the first-world nations who have outlawed this barbaric, ineffective and costly practice. It is time to change the culture of death in Arizona.”

You can read the entire editorial by clicking here.

Bishop Olmsted criticizes death penalty

by

The Arizona Republic recently ran editorials with opposing viewpoints on the death penalty. The newspaper asked, “What if Arizona repealed the death penalty”? Speaking against the death penalty was the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, Thomas J. Olmsted, who wrote:

“If Arizona were to repeal the death penalty, it would be a positive step forward in promoting a culture of life and it would benefit us by strengthening the moral tone and texture of our society.”

Speaking for the death penalty was Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery.  You can read the exchange by clicking here.

Time for Moratorium on Arizona Executions

by

The following letter to the editor ran in the Arizona Daily Star.  It’s by DPAA’s vice president.

Time for moratorium on Arizona executions

By Punch Woods

It’s time Arizona declare a moratorium on executions and spend a few years taking a good long look at the death penalty.

With seven Arizona death-row inmates being exonerated since 1989 I wonder how many more should be? And worse, how many have been executed who were innocent?

With currently 124 men and women on death row and seven who have been exonerated, the odds are about 1 to 20 that there are innocent men and women awaiting execution.

It’s time.

An Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth

by

The following letter to the editor ran in the Casa Grande Dispatch in March.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
By the Rev. Anthony F. Fasline and Joan M. Bundy

On the days that the State of Arizona puts to death a prisoner from Death Row—or as it says above the door to the cell block, “Condemned Row”—a small contingent of protesters holds vigil across the street from the prison in Florence, where inside its walls, the execution will occur. Standing in silence, they hold up signs protesting the impending execution. Among them, one reads: “AN EYE FOR AN EYE GIVES US A BLIND SOCIETY.” Another: “KILLING DOESN’T DO IT/CLEMENCY DOES.” Yet another: “DEATH NO/LIFE YES.” The group is comprised of some men, some women, each of different faiths, all of diverse backgrounds. One is an attorney, another a Catholic priest, yet another an artist. Their commonality is their belief that killing a human being is wrong, no matter the circumstances. They see the irony and illogic in the long-held state argument that “we kill to teach that killing is wrong.” Sometimes a passing motorist makes an inquiry or shouts an objection. A kind response is always given, joined with a “God bless you.”

At the time when the lethal injection is scheduled to begin, the small group gathers in a circle, with hands joined, and a prayer is given for the victims of the perpetrator’s crime and for the one being executed, who is also a victim of the crime. Then the group departs in silence.

Most faith communities believe that capital punishment is wrong. The Catholic Church, for example, teaches: “Capital punishment can be legitimately employed but the cases in which the execution of the offender is absolutely necessary are ‘very rare, if practically nonexistent.'” The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church state: “We believe the death penalty denies the power of Christ to redeem, restore and transform all human beings. The United Methodist Church is deeply concerned about crime throughout the world and the value of any life taken by a murder or homicide. We believe all human life is sacred and created by God and therefore, we must see all human life as significant and valuable. When governments implement the death penalty (capital punishment), then the life of the convicted person is devalued and all possibility of change in that person’s life ends. We believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that the possibility of reconciliation with Christ comes through repentance. This gift of reconciliation is offered to all individuals without exception and gives all life new dignity and sacredness. For this reason, we oppose the death penalty (capital punishment) and urge its elimination from all criminal codes.” (The Book of Discipline, 2004).

One may hypothesize a rare case where capital punishment might be employed but one need not hypothesize that prisoners under constant surveillance, by watchful guards, “caged” much of each day, with his or her death sentence commuted to a lifetime in prison, without parole, is not a threat to society and that the common good of society is protected from the perpetrator. Furthermore, many of the offenders committed the crimes when they were very young and/or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The have years to adjust to prison life and many, if not most, have turned their lives around. If they do exhibit assaultive or any other unacceptable behavior, they are retained at the highest necessary level of security.

The demand of “an eye for an eye” has indeed led us to a “blind state.” We who are blinded by our commitment to a modality of punishing and killing need to “see” with open hearts and think not of killing but of clemency. Rav Kook, a Jewish mystic, has written: “It is our right to hate an evil man for his actions but because his deepest self is the image of God it our duty to honor him with love (life).” Does this not lead us into the domain of Divine Mercy? Why do the politicos after many years of “political footballing” put a prisoner to death rather than simply granting clemency so the offender can spend the rest of his or her life being remorseful and gaining redemption? Putting a man to death by political or juridical decision is a blasphemous inflation of human authority, of believing that it is appropriate for humans to decree who shall live and who shall die.

How many of us who are “blinded” to the injustice of killing will stand against capital punishment and opt for clemency?

To find out more about capital punishment and alternatives, come and visit our local chapter of Death Penalty Alternatives for Arizona (DPAA), which meets at the clubhouse at Val Vista RV Park at 7 p.m. the third Monday of each month. You may just want to join us in seeking peace and justice for all.

For more information on this local DPAA chapter, please contact us at info@azdeathpenalty.org.

Letter to Editor: End Capital Punishment

by

DPAA President Bob Schwartz had a letter to the editor in The Arizona Republic on March 2, 2013, in response to a previous letter by the county attorney.  Bob wrote:

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery tells us that those whom Arizona killed in 2012 “earned” their deaths. It seems that the county attorney just invented a new judicial standard. And how did Arizona earn the moral purity needed to carry out the premeditated killing of those men?

Bob added:

More death does not do any service to the dead or their survivors. We all deserve a justice system that is more than sanitized revenge.

You can read the entire letter by clicking here.

Letter to Editor: County Attorney’s Execution Column Weak

by

Dale Baich, a federal public defender who represents death-row prisoners, wrote a response to a letter to the editor by County Attorney Bill Montgomery.  Montgomery, who in turn was responding to a column previously mentioned in this blog, claimed that the inmates had earned their death sentences.  Baich disagreed:

What the county attorney fails to mention is that the equally if not more culpable co-defendants of Richard Stokley, Daniel Cook and Robert Towery were offered plea deals and have been released from prison. Thomas Kemp’s equally culpable co-defendant received a life sentence. Both Samuel Lopez and Robert Moorman were severely mentally impaired. Moorman was described by experts as having the mind of a 12-year-old child.

To read the entire letter, please click here.