terrorism victim asks: would my story contribute to amvfhr/mvfhr_8-06.pdfthat would divide the...

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."- Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948

ARTICLE 3Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights Newsletter 3 • Fall/Winter 2006

ARTICLE 3

Opposing the Death Penalty in Wisconsin............3

Organizing Victims in New York...........................5

Online Gallery of Victims’ Stories..........................5

Children in Families of the Executed....................6

The Death Penalty in Cases of Domestic

Violence...............................................................7

Inside This IssueVictims’ Voices Around the U.S. ...........................8

Voices of Victims Opposing the Death Penalty in

the Philippines...................................................10

From the President and Executive Director ........11

Excerpt from Susan Hirsch’s book.......................12

continued on page 2

Over 200 people were killed, and 5,000 injured,when two bombs exploded in U.S. Embassies inKenya and Tanzania in August 1998. AbdulrahmanAbdalla, nicknamed Jamal, was waiting outside theembassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, while his wifeSusan Hirsch, an American anthropologist, ran anerrand inside. Susan survived the bomb blast; herhusband did not.

Four men were arrested in connection with thebombings, and in the spring of 2001, as the trialswere about to be held in New York federal court,two of the defendants were facing the death penal-ty. As a widow of someone killed by one of thebomb blasts and as a survivor of the blast herself,Susan Hirsch was being urged by prosecutors andFBI agents to participate in the penalty phase of thetrial.

“I had been looking forward to attending thetrial,” Susan told Article 3 in a recent interview. “Atthat time, there wasn’t the large public discussionabout terrorist violence and the loss to family mem-bers of victims that there has been since. I was look-

Terrorism Victim Asks: Would My Story Contribute to aDeath Sentence?

ing to the courtroom as a place where I would learnwhat had happened in the bombing, because a lotof the information had been classified up to thatpoint. And I was looking for some kind of publicrecognition for my loss and the losses of so manyothers who were affected.”

What Susan did not want to do was contributeto the possibility of a death sentence. A lifelongopponent of the death penalty, she was concernedthat telling her story in the context of this legalproceeding would mean doing something otherthan simply describing her loss and its impact.

“I felt it was disingenuous of the prosecutors totry to convince me to tell my story on the theorythat it would give me a sense of closure or honorJamal’s memory,” Susan says. “In this context, mystory would be used to argue for a death sentence.That would be the purpose that the story was serv-ing, and that was not what I wanted.”

Susan declined to testify during the penaltyphase, but she did speak publicly about her experi-ence and about her opposition to the death penalty

2

Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights

Board of Directors

Bud Welch, President Brian Roberts, ChairTamara Chikunova, Vice-ChairVicki Schieber, TreasurerBill BabbittJennifer Bishop-JenkinsReverend Walter EverettBill JenkinsToshi KazamaRobert MeeropolBill PelkeSister Helen PrejeanBonnita Spikes

StaffRenny Cushing, Executive DirectorKate LowensteinSusannah ShefferSarah Wisely (summer intern)

Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights is a mem-ber of the World Coalition to Abolish the DeathPenalty, the National Coalition to Abolish the DeathPenalty, the U.S. Human Rights Network and theNational Organization for Victim Assistance

Article 3Angela Mark & Red Sun PressDesign and Production

Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights2161 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge MA 02140 USA617-491-9600

[email protected]

Federal tax identification number: 11-3725424


Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights is an inter-national, non-governmental organization of familymembers of victims of criminal murder, terroristkillings, state executions, extrajudicial assassinations,and “disappearances” working to oppose the deathpenalty from a human rights perspective.

Membership is open to all victims’ family memberswho oppose the death penalty in all cases. “Friendof MVFHR” membership is open to all those interest-ed in joining our efforts.

in other contexts, including on National Public Radio. At onepoint during the trials, a prosecutor argued that a death sentencewould be the only way to bring justice to the families of the vic-tims, and the defense, aware of Susan’s stance, was able torespond that not all the victims’ family members felt that way.

In the end, all four defendants received life sentences inUnited States federal prison. Meanwhile, Susan Hirsch’s book Inthe Moment of Greatest Calamity: Terrorism, Grief, and a Victim’sQuest for Justice will be published this fall. A large portion of thebook is devoted to Susan’s experience of the bombing trials andthe way that the death penalty affected her own and others’reactions.

Susan told us that while many people are interested in thefact that she maintained her opposition to the death penaltyeven after losing her husband in a terrorist attack, some areangry at her implied criticism of the government’s response tothe bombings, and others, particularly those in the victims’rights movement, object to her raising questions about the roleof victims in the penalty phase of a capital trial.

Susan says she understands the victims’ community’s reluc-tance to question hard-won rights, yet her experience reminds usof how complex the issue can be for a victim who does not agreewith the death penalty. Even when victims are not discriminat-ed against because of their anti-death penalty stance (as Susanmakes clear she was not), the question of their willingness to seetheir story contribute to a death sentence still remains.

Susan, who now works at the Conflict Analysis andResolution Institute at George Mason University and has joinedMVFHR, says she never equated justice with the death penalty.“For me, one aspect of justice was that a powerful institution – afederal court, in this case – would seriously listen to and sortthrough the story of what happened, and would publicize it. Itwas also very important to me that the process be fair. Finally,justice involves accountability, which I think involves appreciat-ing one’s responsibility for and the implications of what hap-pened. One of the things I found most frustrating about thespecter of the death penalty is that it would not allow for thepossibility of the individuals coming to a full understanding ofwhat they’d done. In that sense, the death penalty is the oppo-site of accountability.”

See p. 12 for an excerpt from Susan Hirsch’s forthcoming book.

continued from page 1

Fall/Winter 2006

3


In May, Wisconsin lawmakers narrowly approvedplacing a referendum on November’s ballot that will askvoters whether the death penalty should be enacted forcases involving a first-degree homicide conviction that isbased on DNA evidence. Wisconsin has not had thedeath penalty since 1853, but some lawmakers have triedrepeatedly over the past twenty years to reinstate it,including Senate President Alan Lasee, lead sponsor of thecurrent bill.

Although the referendum is non-binding, pro-deathpenalty lawmakers say they hope to use a positive vote topromote passage of a death penalty law in Wisconsin.Passage of the referendum would also be an enormous set-back to moratorium and abolition efforts in other states.

Members of MVFHR have joined other anti-deathpenalty activists in forming a “No Death PenaltyWisconsin” coalition and are doing victim-to-victim out-reach and organizing to ensure that victims who opposethe death penalty are part of the discussion about possiblereinstatement.

Victims’ Family Member Lawmakers Leadthe OppositionLawmakers who are family members of murder vic-tims led the opposition to the referendum by speak-ing out against it during the floor debate in May.Representative Amy Sue Vruwink (D-Milladore)showed a photograph of her cousin Forrest, who wasmurdered in 2004, as she argued against the referen-dum. Representative Bob Ziegelbauer (D-Manitowoc),whose sister Mary was murdered in 1983, urged hiscolleagues not to place a death penalty referendumon the ballot just weeks after Steven Avery will standtrial for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach. Thishigh-profile trial will take place in Rep. Ziegelbauer’sdistrict, and he said a death penalty referendumwould create “a supercharged political environment”that would divide the community and focus unwant-ed publicity on the victim’s family.

Representative Jennifer Shilling (D-LaCrosse) isthe daughter of Richard and Lynn Ehlenfeldt, whowere murdered in Palatine, Illinois in 1993 in a case

Opposing the Death Penalty in Wisconsin

that became nationallyknown as the “Brown’sChicken Massacre.” Rep.Shilling said during theWisconsin floor debate, “Forsome survivors of homicide,the thought of executingsomeone adds to the pain.Nothing gives me chillsmore than the thought of acarnival atmosphere that Iwould see surrounding exe-cutions.”

Reaching Out to SurvivorsAs we work to oppose reinstatement of the death

penalty in Wisconsin, one of our messages is that thereare other, better ways to reduce violence and to helpsurvivors in the aftermath of murder. WisconsinMVFHR member Debra Fifer’s 22-year-old son, KirkBickham, Jr., was killed three years ago, and since thenshe has worked to reduce violence and assist survivorsin several ways. With two other mothers of homicidevictims, Debra founded Mothers Against Gun Violence,which promotes responsible gun ownership throughstricter gun control laws. Debra is Chair of theWisconsin chapter of the Million Mom March. Shespeaks to young people about the experience of being acrime victim; for example, last fall she addressed youngmen who are part of a juvenile justice program.

Debra reaches out to family members of homicidevictims in Wisconsin, not only to invite them to joinher in working to reduce violence but also to commem-orate those they have lost and urge the public not toforget those lives. This past April, Mothers Against GunViolence created an exhibit and held a ceremony in theCapitol Rotunda remembering victims of homicide.

“If the death penalty could bring my son back, thensure, I’d be all for it,” Debra says. “But that’s not how itworks, and in fact I believe that just as citizens do nothave the right to take someone else’s life, the stateshould not have that right either. States that have the

continued on page 4

Representative Jennifer Shilling

4


death penalty arenot crime-free, andit’s already beenproven that thedeath penalty is nota deterrent to crime.We do not need thedeath penalty inWisconsin.”

TheresaMatthews’ 23-year-old son Ishmal wasmurdered in 2002,and, like Debra, shehas been active inefforts to reduce gunviolence inWisconsin. Theresa is also the organizer of a localevent that she calls Day of Peace, held each year on herson’s birthday. Members of the community, homicidedetectives, and members of the fire department and thesheriff’s department come together to enjoy a peaceful

day in memory ofhomicide victims.

“A lot of peoplethought that I wouldwant the person whodid this terrible thingto my son to be exe-cuted, but that’s notwhat I want,” Theresasays. “We keep ourhope that the personwill be found andheld accountable, butwho are we to say alife for a life? That’s

not what Ishmal would want. We don’t need the deathpenalty in Wisconsin. We have enough violence, and Idon’t believe the death penalty would have preventedmy son’s murder. To me the death penalty is just legal-ized murder, and I’m not for that.”

MVFHR Board Member WinsVictim Activist Award

At this year’s National Organization forVictim Assistance conference, which was heldin Florida, MVFHR Board member Bill Jenkinsreceived the Edith Surgan Victim ActivistAward, which is given annually to victimswho “demonstrate a life of commitment aftertheir victimization to promote rights andservices that help change the lives of vic-tims.” (Edith Surgan, whose daughter wasmurdered in 1976, advocated for the estab-lishment of victim services, victim compensa-tion laws, and the victims’ rights laws whichare now common throughout the UnitedStates.)

Bill has worked on behalf of victims sincehis 16-year-old son William was shot andkilled in 1997. His book What to Do When thePolice Leave: A Guide to the First Days ofTraumatic Loss is used by victim assistanceprograms, police departments, funeral homes,and clergy throughout the United States. Billtrains victim service professionals, membersof law enforcement, and attorneys in issuesconcerning the needs of victims, and he is anactive member not only of the NationalOrganization for Victim Assistance but also ofthe National Center for Victims of Crime,Parents of Murdered Children, CompassionateFriends, and Fight Crime: Invest in Kids.

As a board member of MVFHR, Bill is alsoan outspoken activist against the death penal-ty. “Because victim activists know me assomeone who works for victims’ rights andvictims’ needs,” Bill observes, “we start outwith that common bond. Then when theyfind out that I am opposed to the deathpenalty, they don’t immediately dismiss meas someone who doesn’t care about victims.Instead, they are more open to hearing why Ihold that view.”

Opposing the Death Penalty in Wisconsincontinued from page 3

Theresa Matthews participating in aceremony commemorating Wisconsinvictims of homicide

Debra Fifer with her son’s favoritebelongings

Fall/Winter 2006

5


In May, MVFHR formalized anagreement with New YorkersAgainst the Death Penalty(NYADP) to provide expertise,training, and logistical support asthey reach out to and organize vic-tims around the state. MVFHR’sRenny Cushing and KateLowenstein are working regularlywith NYADP’s new Victims’Outreach Coordinator, MarieVerzulli. Marie’s 29-year-old sister,Catherine Marsh, was one of eightwomen murdered by a serial killerin 1998 (see Marie’s statement inVictims’ Voices, p. 9).

“It’s wonderful to work withpeople who share a commonbond,” Marie says of her workwith MVFHR. “It’s valuable to talkwith people who have experienceorganizing victims to oppose thedeath penalty, and to hear whathas worked and what hasn’t. Sooften, victims are afraid to speakout, but when they do, their voiceshave such an impact. We want tohelp victims where they are, not

Online Gallery of Victims’ Stories

We are developing an online gallery of victims’ stories that can be used to connect with others and to gath-er material for lawmakers, public presentations, researchers, members of the clergy, and anyone else interestedin learning more about the range of experiences of victims’ family members and family members of the exe-cuted and their myriad reasons for opposing the death penalty.

Each page of the gallery features a photo of the victim, a photo of the family member(s), a paragraphabout what happened and the outcome of the legal case, a paragraph about the family member’s work againstthe death penalty, and a paragraph of direct quotation from the family member about his or her reasons foropposing the death penalty. You can browse by name or by location. As the gallery grows, we anticipatemaking it possible for visitors to browse by other categories, such as families of law enforcement.

Participating in the gallery is an easy way to add your voice to the growing group of victims’ family mem-bers speaking out against the death penalty. Visit www.murdervictimsfamilies.org (click on “Victims’ Stories”)and let us know if you or someone you know would like to be included.

Organizing Victims in New York

where people think they ought tobe, and we want to let them knowthat every voice matters.”

NYADP Executive DirectorDavid Kaczynski wrote in thegroup’s June newsletter, “To myknowledge, NYADP’s ambitiousplan of an organized victim com-munity working against the deathpenalty is a first among state anti-death penalty coalitions anywherein the country. … AlthoughNYADP has benefited immenselyfrom victim family involvement inthe past, all too often we’ve calledupon victims only when we need-ed them to testify at hearings, towrite an op-ed piece, or to fend offpublic cries for the death penalty aday or two after some shockingmurder. As grateful as I have felttoward victim family memberswho answered our call, I’ve alsofelt uncomfortable thinking thatperhaps we were using victims tomeet our needs without reflectingon how NYADP could meet any oftheirs. As much as politicians,

including DAs in capital cases, givelip service to meeting the needs ofcrime victims, the truth is that vic-tims are too often exploited tomeet others’ agendas, and thenthey are just as quickly droppedand forgotten. I didn’t wantNYADP to exploit victims in thesame way.”

We are pleased to be workingclosely with our colleagues atNYADP in the effort to keep thedeath penalty from being reinstat-ed in New York. (After the stateSupreme Court ruled New York’sdeath penalty law unconstitutionaltwo years ago, the state has beenessentially death penalty-free, butthe risk of new legislation or a newjudicial ruling still remains. Aswell, the federal government con-tinues to seek the death penaltyfor federal defendants in NewYork, though no death sentenceshave yet resulted.) We know thatwork in New York is critical to theabolition movement in the U.S.and internationally.

6


Since the last issue of Article 3 was published, wehave been interviewing family members of the exe-cuted around the United States as part of the nextphase of MVFHR’s “No Silence, No Shame: OrganizingFamilies of the Executed” project. We plan to releasea report on International Human Rights Day(December 10th) that will examine several aspects ofthese families’ experiences within the context ofhuman rights.

One of the issues we are paying particular atten-tion to is the effect of executions on children in thefamilies of those executed. As Robert Meeropol – whowas 6 years old when his parents were executed – saidat No Silence, No Shame’s opening ceremony lastOctober, “As far as I know no one has studied howthe execution of an immediate family memberimpacts children. We don’t even know how manychildren have an immediate family member on deathrow in the United States today. Worse, we don’t knowthe effect that having a parent executed will haveupon their impressionable lives, and the cost societymay pay for that impact.”

In addition to publishing our own report, we arehoping to submit articles to other publications aboutthis specific issue. Here are a few excerpts from ourinterviews:

Pam Crawford’s granddaughter Callie was 8 yearsold when Pam’s brother, Ed Horsley, was executed inAlabama. Pam told us that Callie, at 19, is still strug-gling with nightmares and unresolved questions:“She asks, ‘How can It be wrong to kill somebody butright for the state to kill?’ She has nightmares thatshe is trying to reach Uncle Ed and he’s running fromher, or she’s calling to him but she can’t get to himbecause there’s a wall between them.”

Wendy Bradley, whose father Jerry McWee wasexecuted in South Carolina two years ago, told us,“The whole family is punished by the death penalty.You always try to think about how you could haveprevented it. Even a child thinks that. You take thaton – did we misbehave in a certain way? Did we dosomething that led to this?”

Christina Lawson, whose husband David Martinez

Children in Families of the Executed

was executed in Texas last year, described how hertwo children, who were 10 and 9 at the time of theirfather’s execution, continue to struggle to make senseof what happened. “I remember having to explain tothem that people didn’t believe Daddy should live.My son didn’t talk about it, but my daughter beganto make statements like, ‘They’re going to kill himbecause he killed somebody, so when they kill him,who do we get to kill?’ There are days when it’s raw.One day she told me she had a hard time being inschool because she felt like everyone was guilty ofmurdering her dad, all the people of Texas wereguilty.”

Desiree Babbitt, whosefather, Manny Babbitt, wasexecuted in California in1999, said, “I always felt likemy father raised me fromprison. I loved him and felthis love for me. There were alot of secrets in the family,and although I knew myfather was in prison, no onetold me that he was facing a death sentence until Iwas 20 and the whole family was going to Californiato beg for his life before the pardon board. I spoke atthe hearing and talked about what my father meantto me, and everyone seemed to be listening. Ithought we had saved him, but we didn’t.Sometimes I think that if I had understood the truthearlier, I might have been able to do more. I wishpeople could understand how much it hurt me thathe was executed.”

Desiree Babbitt with heruncle Bill Babbitt in Texaslast October

Calendar

Virginia Journey of Hope, October 13-29, 2006. For informa-tion: www.journeyofhope.org, 877-9-2-4GIVE.

The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty annualconference, October 27-29, Fairfax, VA. For information:www.ncadp.org, 202-331-4090

World Day Against the Death Penalty, October 10, 2006(events in many locations), and the Fourth World CongressAgainst the Death Penalty, February 1-3, 2007, Paris. Forinformation: www.worldcoalition.org

Fall/Winter 2006

7


Last November, Rose, Sarah,John, and Janet Syriani met withNorth Carolina governor MichaelEasley to plead for the life of theirfather, Elias Syriani, who was fac-ing execution later that month.“If this execution is carried out,we’ll have two parents murdered,”Rose said.

The Syriani siblings had beenchildren when their father stabbedtheir mother, Theresa Syriani, todeath in 1990. After years ofestrangement from their father,each had recently found a way tore-establish a relationship withhim, and they were sure that theydidn’t want him executed.

The governor rejected theSyrianis’ plea for clemency, andElias Syriani was executed onNovember 18. In a statement thathe read on the night of the execu-tion, the Syriani children’s attor-ney, Russell Sizemore, said, “Rose,Sarah, John and Janet Syriani havetraveled so far in the process ofhealing from the terrible woundsof a horrible domestic tragedy thatit is nothing short of cruel thattheir journey would be violentlyinterrupted tonight by anotherdeath, a death entirely within ourpower to prevent. We mourn, andall of the people who have had achance to meet these four wonder-ful people mourn, the fact that oursociety is still so unable to hear thechildren wounded by domesticviolence and so unable to musterthe courage to affirm life and sup-port reconciliation.”

What happens when the child

The Death Penalty in Cases of Domestic Violence

of a murder victim is also the childof the person convicted of thatmurder? What are the costs ofexecuting the offender and victim-izing the child a second time?MVFHR is exploring these ques-tions within the context of the“No Silence, No Shame” project,and we recently interviewedMarcus Lawrie, who was 14 whenthe state of Delaware executed hisfather in 1999. In 1992, DavidLawrie had set fire to his house ina drug-induced rage, killing hiswife Michelle Lawrie, two of theiryoung children, and a neighbor’schild.

What Marcus wants people tounderstand is that as horrific asthis tragedy was, he did not viewthe execution of his father as com-pensation for his multiple losses.“I lost my mom and sisters becauseof my dad, and that hurts,” he saysnow, “but you’ve got to under-stand – by giving my father thedeath penalty, you’re taking myother parent from me.” Hard as itmay be for society to accept,Marcus did not see his father onlyas a criminal. He saw DavidLawrie as his only remaining par-ent, and he didn’t want to losehim.

“Each time they gave him anexecution date, it would touch mea little harder,” Marcus remembers.There was a lot that he and hisfather never talked about directly,but David kept a notebook that heleft for Marcus after his death. “Hefilled up a whole compositionbook, answering all the questions I

was too scared to ask.”Marcus remembers hopping

the back fence at his elementaryschool in order to escape reporterswho wanted to photograph him.He remembers people setting dollbabies on fire in the yard of hisgrandmother’s home. He remem-bers getting into fights with otherkids at school. He remembersstanding outside the prison on thenight of the execution, hearingpeople screaming in favor of thedeath penalty.

Marcus’s support that nightcame from people on the anti-death penalty side of the fenced-inprotest area. He remembers adultsshielding him from reporters andshaking his hand or giving him ahug and telling him they weresorry about what was happeningthat night. Victims’ family mem-bers and anti-death penaltyactivists Anne Coleman andBarbara Lewis, who had been help-ful to Marcus and his grandmotherfor several years, were standingwith him that night and remainhis close friends today.

Marcus says that at first it washard to talk much about howeither of his parents had died, butas he got older, talking got easier.Now, at 21, he’s hopeful that hisexperience might make peoplethink about the effect of imposingthe death penalty in cases ofdomestic violence. He says, “Ithink a lot of people would changetheir minds about the death penal-ty if they heard stories like mine.”

8


In each issue of Article 3 we like to include a fewexamples of the ways in which victims’ family membersare expressing their opposition to the death penalty.Here are some recent examples that have come to usfrom around the U.S.:

Arkansas:Betsey Wright regularly speaks to church and

civic groups and works to organize death penaltyopponents in Arkansas. In May, she published apiece in the Arkansas Times, which said in part,“When I give talks about my opposition to thedeath penalty, somebody always declares that Iwouldn’t feel this way if somebody I loved hadbeen murdered. Unfortunately, I got put to the test.??In February 2005, in Texas, my precious 21-year-old niece, Heather, was tortured, raped, mutilatedand murdered. Somebody destroyed her dreams andher life, and destroyed our family’s hopes for her. Iam desperate for justice. I want the Texas Rangers tofind the man who committed this horror. I wanthim caught so he won’t do such a thing to anybodyelse. I want him found so that Heather’s mother cansleep again instead of worrying about her otherdaughters. I find myself praying that he will justplead guilty because I don’t want the hideous thingshe did to Heather talked about in a public trial. ButI don’t want him executed. That would be revenge,not justice. I believe the words of the Bible that sayrevenge is God’s, not ours. I shudder at the idea ofgovernment imitating this killer by killing him. Allthe talk about the ‘closure’ given by an execution isa myth. Heather is gone. Her chair is forever empty,and killing her murderer will not change that.”

Kansas: As many readers know, the U.S. Supreme Court’s

June ruling in Kansas v. Marsh upheld Kansas’sdeath penalty statute. The challenge had beenabout the constitutionality of the law’s requiring ajury to impose a death sentence when it finds thatthe aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the

case have equal weight. Bill Lucero sent us copies of letters that he wrote

to Topeka newspapers after the ruling. In the letterthat was printed in the Metro News, Bill wrote,“When the death penalty is invoked, family mem-bers of the victims ultimately are made to incurlonger and more painful suffering. Some of thosefamily members may initially favor execution butexperiences in other states overwhelmingly demon-strated that no solace is gained from implementingthe death of the condemned. Healing only occursfrom the support of family, friends, church andcommunity.

When society takes on the role of dispenser ofvengeful retribution, then we have merely loweredourselves to the same level of the individual whocommitted such heinous acts. Capital cases thus fartried in Kansas have been characterized by jury mis-conduct, judicial error, arbitrariness in charging andsentencing, inadequate defense representation,withheld evidence, disparity in sentencing, prosecu-torial misconduct and racial biases. As a result wehave already experienced mistrial, sentence reversal,conviction reversal and post death sentencing pleabargaining, contributing to a financial cost farabove providing a life without parole sentence. Ifwe are going to ask our children to learn to respectlife, then we need to do better than this. …”

Vermont: In June, Vermont imposed its first death sen-

tence in almost 50 years. Although Vermont itselfdoes not have the death penalty, Donald Fell wascharged with capital murder under federal law.

Rachel Lawler, Amnesty International’s StateDeath Penalty Action Coordinator for Vermont, toldus that the groups who were planning events inprotest of the federal sentencing decided to focustheir message on “the problems with the deathpenalty that are pervasive throughout the entirecountry – more specifically the re-victimization thatvictims’ family members are subject to as a result of

Victims’ Voices Around the U.S.

Fall/Winter 2006

9


a broken death penalty system. We wanted to takethis opportunity to increase the public’s awarenessof this failure as well as to refute the misconceptionthat all victims’ family members want the deathpenalty to help them heal.”

The June 15th Vigil to Remember Victims ofHomicide, held in Burlington, included remarks byMarie Verzulli from New York and MVFHR Boardmember Walt Everett from Pennsylvania. Mariesaid, in part, “My sister, Catherine Marsh, was oneof eight women who fell victim to a serial killer inPoughkeepsie, New York. I had never thought muchabout the death penalty until the day in 1998 whenthe District Attorney asked me how I felt. I told himthat I had never really thought about it. I couldn’timagine what, if anything, could bring me comfortor lessen my pain and despair, but I knew it wasn’tthat. The most perverse part of this unfair and cost-ly death penalty process is that the murdererachieves a kind of celebrity while the pain andanguish of the murder victim family members isforgotten or just seems to fall between the cracks.”

Washington, D.C.: Several victims’ family members participated in

the Starvin’ for Justice Fast and Vigil, which washeld in front of the U.S. Supreme Court from June29

th (the anniversary of the 1972 Furman decision,

which found the current application of the deathpenalty to be unconstitutional) to July 2nd (theanniversary of the 1976 Gregg decision, whichallowed for the resumption of death sentences inthe U.S.). In addition to maintaining a presenceoutside the court, victims’ family members spokeabout their experiences and their reasons for oppos-ing the death penalty. They were joined by severalpeople who have been released from death row.

The annual fast and vigil is organized by theAbolitionist Action Committee and co-sponsored byseveral anti-death penalty organizations and indi-viduals.

Wisconsin: In May, Aleta Reckling Chossek published an

op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, in which shetold about the 1994 murder of her father andexplained that his assailant had faced the deathpenalty in Illinois. Aleta went on to say, in part, “Ioffer my perspective as a family member of onewho was murdered. The death penalty optionbrought no peace, no closure to our family. Murderbrings out primitive emotions in families. In addi-tion to the grief, there is the natural desire for clo-sure, retribution, justice and, ultimately, peace. …My four siblings and I were encouraged by thepolitically ambitious state’s attorney to support thedeath penalty. We could not come to consensus.This issue put additional stress on an already devas-tating time for us. There are many reasons I opposethe death penalty — some emotional, some practi-cal. But primarily, I oppose the death penaltybecause it perpetuates a cycle of violence that Godsought to end.”

Murder victims’ family members at the U.S. Supreme Court forthe annual fast and vigil. Left to right: Christina Lawson (TX),Celeste Fitzgerald (NJ), Bonnita Spikes (MD), Art Laffin (CT),George White (FL), Liliana Caetano (VA), SueZann Bosler (FL),Sam Reese Sheppard (CA), Bill Pelke (AK)

Phot

oby

Abe

Bono

witz

10


In June, the Philippines became the first Asiannation to abolish the death penalty. One of the law-makers voting in favor of abolition was SenatorRichard Gordon, whose father, James Gordon, wasmurdered by an escaped inmate in 1967, and whoseniece was murdered by a houseboy many years later.

Senator Gordon said in his co-sponsorship speechthat he was voting in favor of abolition “not just to bemerciful but to be just. It is so easy to kill a person tobring him to justice, but the lifetime suffering of anation when it finds out that it has made a mistake isindelible.” The Senator emphasized the need to focuson crime prevention in addition to abolishing thedeath penalty. “We cannot just sit idly by and abolishthe death penalty while at the same time be inattentiveto the fact that there are constant killings here in ourcountry and the government does not seem to have thecapability to properly investigate these crimes, as well asto stop these killings on the streets,” he said.

Another family member of a murder victim whoopenly opposed the death penalty in the Philippineswas Raydean Salvosa, whose brother was brutally mur-

MVFHR was one of many signatories to a report that was presented to the Human Rights Committee ofthe United Nations earlier this year. Periodically, the UN looks at whether countries that have ratified theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are in fact in compliance with that treaty.(The United States ratified the ICCPR in 1992.) The procedure for this regular review by the UN is that thestate department submits a report evaluating our country’s compliance with the treaty and then non-gov-ernmental organizations are invited to submit “shadow reports” which dispute, or provide information notincluded in, the official report.

The U.S. State Department submitted its report to the UN last October, and then 142 U.S. non-profitorganizations and 32 individuals submitted a shadow report detailing many areas in which the U.S. fails touphold the rights outlined in the ICCPR. The section on the death penalty focused on the execution of thementally ill, lethal injection as cruel and inhuman punishment, racial discrimination in capital sentencing,death row conditions and their effects on prisoners’ mental health, and the failure to restrict the deathpenalty to the most serious crimes.

In July, the UN Human Rights Committee held hearings on these reports and then issued findings andrecommendations about how the United States should improve in several areas. Regarding the death penal-ty, the committee criticized the way death sentences in the U.S. are disproportionately applied to minoritiesand the poor. The committee then recommended that the U.S. “should place a moratorium on capital sen-tences, bearing in mind the desirability of abolishing death penalty.”

We encourage MVFHR members to visit the websites of the U.S. Human Rights Network (www.ushrnet-work.org) and Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) for more details and information.

Voices of Victims Opposing the Death Penalty in the Philippines

dered during a robbery. Mr. Salvosa told us that fearand frustration has fueled strong public support for thedeath penalty in the Philippines. “Because people areafraid of the high crime rates and frustrated by the inef-ficiency of law enforcement, the death penalty is seenas the answer to their problems,” he explained.

For many years a professor of political theory, Mr.Salvosa had always opposed the death penalty forboth philosophical and practical reasons. His broth-er’s murder challenged those beliefs.

“But in the end, I am still against the death penalty– more so now than ever before,” Mr. Salvosa toldArticle 3. “If executing those men would bring back mybrother, I would be all for it. But it doesn’t – it justmakes us guilty of the same crime.” Mr. Salvosa is nowthe Managing Director of the Consuelo Foundation,which supports programs that help abused and streetchildren and juvenile offenders. He asks, “Why notrechannel our efforts into destroying the conditions ofpoverty, injustice, abuse, and neglect that breed menlike those who murdered my brother?”

Fall/Winter 2006

11


From the President and Executive Director

YES, I want to support the work of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights. Enclosed is a check withmy tax-deductible contribution of

❑ $250 ❑ $100 ❑ $50 ❑ $25 Other amount $______

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________________________

City: ____________________________________ State:__________ Zip: ___________________

Phone: __________________________________ Email: ________________________________

To donate with a credit card, please visit our website, www.murdervictimsfamilies.org

Vicki Schieber, TreasurerMVFHR – DC Office

2611 Washington Avenue • Chevy Chase MD 20815

✁

You’re the reason we’re not daunted by the challenging days ahead.Sure, we have a lot of work to do — a quick glance through this issue ofArticle 3 shows you how busy MVFHR will be until the end of the year.We’ll be organizing victims to oppose reinstatement of the death penal-ty in Wisconsin, publishing our report about families of the executed,adding to our online gallery of victims’ stories, and working in so manyother ways to spread our message that executing people is a humanrights violation that does not honor victims.

We’re not overwhelmed by these tasks because we have a great teamto work with and because we’re confident that once again our wonder-ful supporters will provide the precious funds we need to achieve ourgoals. Because of your prior support, when our finance committee metat the end of June to plan our work for the second half of 2006, we sawthat we only needed to raise an additional $14,000 by the end of the year in order to achieve our ambitiousgoals. We’re pleased to report that we have already raised a good portion of that amount. The letter we mailedto many of you in June brought us $3,000 in contributions, and supporters in Illinois gave over $2,000 toMVFHR at a fundraising event in July. That means we have just $9,000 left to raise by the end of the year! Soyour $100, $50 or $25 contribution will make a real difference.

Tell us you like what we are doing and want us to do even more by sending us your donation today. Usethe envelope enclosed with this newsletter or clip the coupon below. All contributions to MVFHR are taxdeductible to the fullest extent of the law and will be used to honor victims by abolishing the death penalty,one of the world’s worst human rights abuses.

In solidarity, and with gratitude,

Renny Cushing Bud WelchExecutive Director President

MVFHR members and friends listen to RobertMeeropol give a talk at a fundraising eventorganized by Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, BillJenkins, and Jeanne Bishop in July.

Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights2161 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge MA 02140 USA

NON-PROFITUS POSTAGE

PAIDHOLLISTON, MAPERMIT NO. 72

As the trial began, I told a friend that my opposition to

the death penalty was so strong that it would likely stand

in the way of my testifying in the penalty phase. He said,

“Well, that’s really it, isn’t it? People always say, ‘If it were

your family member, you would feel differently. You

would want to see them put to death.’ And you don’t feel

that.” It was true. With no desire for violent vengeance, I

worried that killing the defendants – with all the fanfare

of a national execution – would only make me more dis-

traught.

In the trial’s two penalty phases, victims of the

embassy bombings would inform the jury about the

impact of the crime on their lives so as to influence

whether that impact, along with other factors, such as the

gravity of the crime and the future dangerousness of the

defendant, was sufficient to warrant the death penalty.

The prosecution’s account of the bombings in the guilt

phase had been satisfying. But I wondered how I would

feel if the trial ended without [my husband] ever having

been mentioned. Participating in the penalty phase would

provide recognition for Jamal, our stories, and the grief

his family and I felt. Although routinely depicted as an

opportunity for just such recognition, and also for vic-

tims and their family members to experience therapeutic

catharsis, victim impact testimony, from a legal perspec-

tive, would be presented primarily to convince the jury

that the crime was so heinous that it demanded their

vote for death.

Given that purpose, I had to ask myself: Was achiev-

ing recognition by testifying in the penalty phase worth

enhancing the possibility of a death sentence? During the

next weeks my confusion over this question generated

other hard questions: How solid was my opposition to

the death penalty? Was there any merit to the prosecu-

tion’s view that I could oppose the death penalty and yet

still testify? Was it appropriate for me to refuse to partici-

pate, if it would mean that my story and Jamal’s would

not be told at the trial? Which was the greater burden:

telling our stories in the penalty phase or not telling

them?

From Susan Hirsch’s forthcoming book, In the Moment

of Greatest Calamity: Terrorism, Grief, and a Victim’s

Quest for Justice. See story on p. 1.

terrorism victim asks: would my story contribute to amvfhr/mvfhr_8-06.pdfthat would divide the...

Documents