News and Developments 2006: Victims

Death Penalty Will Not Be Sought for Killing at Jewish Federation

Following an announcement that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty for Naveed Haq, who is accused of killing one woman and wounding five others at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, two of Haq's victims said they supported the decision to seek a life sentence. "The death penalty most likely promulgates further violence and revenge," said Cheryl Stumbo, who was wounded in the attack.  King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng classified it as "one of the most serious crimes that has ever occurred in this city." Layla Bush, who was also wounded by Haq during the July shooting, noted that she believes life in prison will be a tougher punishment than execution, adding, "I think this guy is someone who could feel remorse in prison. Two wrongs don't make a right."

NEW RESOURCES: Victims' Group to Release Report on Families of the Executed

Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights will release a new report on December 10 entitled “Creating More Victims: How Executions Hurt the Families Left Behind.” Families of the executed are victims, too, according to the new report, which draws upon the stories of three dozen family members of inmates executed in the United States and demonstrates that their experiences and traumatic symptoms resemble those of many others who have suffered a violent loss.

“I don’t think people understand what executions do to the families of the person being executed,” says Billie Jean Mayberry, one of the family members featured in the report. Mayberry’s brother, Robert Coe, was executed in Tennessee in 2000. “To us, our brother was murdered right in front of our eyes. It changed all of our lives.”

“Creating More Victims” includes recommendations for mental health professionals, educators, and child welfare advocates. MVFHR also plans to deliver the report to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights and request that that office undertake further study of the impact of executions on surviving families.

NEW VOICES: Life Without Parole Offers Prosecutors, Jurors, and Victims an Acceptable Alternative to the Death Penalty

Prosecutors in Utah have stated that the sentencing option of life without parole has been very helpful in giving jurors and family members of victims a viable alternative to the death penalty.  Salt Lake County District Attorney David Yocom noted that life without parole is often a better option to present to jurors:  "It's a tool for juries as well as prosecutors and defense attorneys, too," Yocom said. "It's an alternative to avoid asking a jury of 12 people to make that decision," to impose the death penalty.

NEW VOICES: "Death penalty isn't the justice I seek"

Bonita Spikes' husband was murdered 12 years ago.  She now works to end the death penalty in Maryland.  She recently wrote about her perspective on capital punishment in the Baltimore Sun.  She stated, in part:

I know that my late husband, Michael, who was an innocent bystander in a 1994 convenience store shooting in New York City, would be proud of me because he, too, opposed the death penalty.

NEW VOICES: NJ Assemblyman Changes Position on Death Penalty - Legislator Also Lost A Family Member

State Assemblyman Nelson T. Albano of Cape May, New Jersey, announced at a forum on the death penalty that he has changed his mind and now opposes capital punishment. Albano said that his change of heart came after reading a book about Kirk Bloodsworth, the 1st death-row inmate in the United States to be exonerated by DNA evidence. The book led him to the insight into that the capital-punishment system is flawed and should be put on hold.

"I think we owe it to the people in our prisons who are innocent to stop executing," he said.

EDITORIAL: Life Without Parole Would Serve Victims Better

As the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission continued its review of the state's law, the Asbury Park Press called for replacing capital punishment with the sentence of life without parole.  This would better serve the families of victims, according to the editorial, because the death penalty causes years of uncertainty with little prospect that the sentence will be carried out.  The editorial stated:

Reasons to drop death penalty Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 09/15/06

State legislators need no further proof about the merits of the death penalty law than to listen to the families of murder victims. Their pain at the thought that their loved one's killer can walk free after a successful appeal or at the end of his sentence should convince any wary lawmaker that life without parole is a far better punishment than a cell on death row.

New Jersey Commission Weighs Whether Death Penalty Should be Continued

During its first public hearing on capital punishment, the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission heard testimony from witnesses representing a broad spectrum of opinions. Almost all those testifying spoke against retaining the death penalty.  Among those who testified before the 13-member panel were legal experts, religious leaders, murder victims' family members, and exonerees such as Larry Peterson, who spent 18 years in a New Jersey prison for a rape and murder he did not commit.

During the hearing, Peterson noted that he was grateful that jurors in his case chose not to hand down the death sentence sought by prosecutors because "if you take a life, you can't turn around and correct the wrong that has been done." It took Peterson's attorneys a decade to secure testing of biological samples using DNA technology. Those tests led to the reversal of his conviction and his release in May 2006. Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project in New York City, also testified about the issue of wrongful convictions during the hearing, noting, "It's ridiculous . . .to assume that mistakes will not be made. We have demonstrated that there is a lot of error in the system."

"For survivors' sake, abolish the death penalty" by Richard Pompelio

From the Star Ledger.

For survivors' sake, abolish the death penalty
Monday, June 12, 2006
BY RICHARD D. POMPELIO

When capital punishment was reinstated in New Jersey more than a quarter-century ago, it was applauded as a declaration by our elected officials that they were going to be tough on crime. It has evolved, however, into an ideological war between the courts and the Legislature. It is a war with many casualties, including crime victims who are constantly caught in its crossfire. It is time to end this war. The death penalty process in the courts of New Jersey revictimizes crime victims by keeping them in the criminal justice system for as many as 20 years, with the re sult being the same: a reversal of the trial jury's death penalty verdict. This judicial process is an insult to survivors of murder and a disservice to the taxpayers who fund this travesty. It is time to bring some sanity to a law that by virtue of its implementation by those in power has no sanity.