“The 'most prolific' serial killer in U.S. history” has now
been sentenced to death, according to a
report in the Daily Mail.
It is suspected that Rodney Alcala, whose picture is shown here, murdered
upwards of 130 young girls and women. Alcala is due to be executed by lethal
injection for the murders of a twelve year old girl and four women. He has
admitted killing another 30 women in the 1970’s. An amateur photographer,
Alcala left behind hundreds of pictures of women, some of whom were his
victims.
“He committed unspeakable acts of horror,” said prosecutor Matt Murphy, “He
gets off on the infliction of pain on other people. He's an evil monster who
knows what he is doing is wrong and doesn't care.”
Detective Claiff Shepard places Alcala “right up somewhere below Hitler and
right around Ted Bundy. It is not humane what he does to these victims. It is
torture.”
Alcala raped his victims, strangled them until they lapsed into
unconsciousness, then revived them and killed them.
According to the account in the Mail:
“He laughed and talked throughout the trial at Orange County Superior Court,
even after also being convicted of murdering four Los Angeles women - Georgia
Wixted, 27, Jill Barcomb, 18, Charlotte Lamb, 32, and Jill Parenteau, 21 -
between 1977 and 1979.
“It took nearly 30 years for the law to catch up with him. He was previously
convicted twice of killing Robin, but the verdicts were overturned. An earring
that belonged to the little girl was also found with the photo cache.”
The
horrific story may remind some in Connecticut of Michael Ross, who had
murdered several young girls and was – after a tortuous legal process –
executed by lethal injection a few years ago over the protestations of some
state legislators who thought the state’s death penalty should be abolished.
The Ross execution trailed off into farce when Superior
Court Justice Robert Chatigny intervened in the case hours before Ross
was to be executed and arranged a teleconferencing call in which the judge
threatened to have the law license of Ross’ attorney revoked if he did not
agree to yet another hearing. Chatigny, successful in this endeavor, was
recommended in October 2009 by Connecticut’s U.S. Senators Chris Dodd and Joe
Lieberman to fill a position left vacant on the 2nd Circuit by Judge Sonia
Sotomayor elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A few months ago, the state legislature passed a bill abolishing the death
penalty that was vetoed by Governor Jodi Rell, who said she thought the present
law was just in the cases in which it had been applied in Connecticut.
Although a number of convicted killers are awaiting punishment on death row
-- among
them Daniel Webb, sentenced to death in 1991 for having brutally raped and
murdered a bank executive in a park in Hartford -- the state has executed only
two people within living memory: Ross and Joseph “Mad Dog” Taborsky in 1960,
who has the distinction of being the only convict in Connecticut sent to death
row twice for different crimes.
The bill abolishing the death penalty was passed shortly after two felons,
Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, broke into a home in Cheshire, beat Dr.
William Petit unconscious with a baseball bat, raped his wife and one of his
daughters, tied their victims to a bed and incinerated the house, murdering
everyone in the family but Dr. Petit, who survived the assault and has
testified before the legislature that the death penalty should, in his view, be
retained.
Dr.
Petit has been steadfast in pursuit of justice for those accused of
murdering his wife and daughters
At the beginning of April, Hayes surprised everyone, including his two public
defenders, when he blurted out in court that he wished to plead guilty to the
charges against him. This left his public defenders, Patrick Culligan and Tomas
Ullman, both ardently opposed to the death penalty, between a rock and a hard
place. They had been prepared to defend Hayes tooth and nail, and now they were
flummoxed.
The legal rule book is clear on the point that lawyers must respect decisions
made by defendants who are competent or not suffering from diminished capacity.
Hayes’ pleading came at an awkward time, just before it had been determined by
a team of experts that he was competent to stand trial. On the basis of this
finding, Hayes’ attorneys had waived a competency hearing. Judged competent,
Hayes then proceeded to plead guilty.
What happens next in the case depends on Hayes. Given their adamantine
opposition to the death penalty, his lawyers may try to persuade Hayes to
leverage his guilty plea in return for a plea bargain. If they are unsuccessful
and Hayes continues to be obdurate, they likely will withdraw from the case and
allow Hayes to secure the services of a lawyer who would responsibly discharge
his wishes -- which is precisely what happened in the Ross case.
The Hartford Courant called all this in an editorial “Suicide
by guilty plea,” a bit of a stretch. The Courant points out that
should presiding Judge Jon Blue accept Hayes’ plea, another judge and jury will
decide his fate in sentencing hearing. Capital punishment is a punishment – not
a deterrent – imposed by a jury upon a convicted criminal, and acceding to the
punishment is not an act of suicide.
“To take Hayes’ life,” the Courant advises, “would be as barbaric as his taking
another’s,” another stretch. Hayes’ victims were not punished; they were
brutally murdered in a series of acts that may aptly be described as barbaric.
Trials are not exercises in barbarism. The barbarian ravages innocent victims, murders
them, and reduces to ashes everything he touches, except for the memories he
leaves in the minds of those who love them and yearn for justice.
The events surrounding the Cheshire murders, in addition to a recent attack by
Webb on a prison guard that could easily have proven fatal, should raise
important questions for those on the Judiciary Committee who have been
agitating for a repeal of the state’s death penalty. The co-chairs of the
committee, Michael Lawlor and Andrew McDonald, both favor abolition, a view
supported by a majority of legislators and some state newspapers.
Appearing recently on the Dan Lovallo show, Lawlor was asked what he might say
to the survivors of the convicted murderers on death row when they learned that
those who have victimized their families enjoy such amenities as television.
One could almost see Lawlor shrugging in his answer: What can you do? The
amenities are given so they may be taken away when those on death row act up
and brutalize their guards. If you cannot take advantage of amenities that may
be withdrawn to prisoners on death row, how will you insure their civility?
Suppose Webb or someone like Webb had killed the guard? What would Lawlor or
McDonald – both of whom who disapprove of the death penalty for any crime,
however horrific – suggest be done in such circumstances, the death penalty
having been abolished as a barbaric relic? Would another life sentence without
parole added to a current life sentence be sufficient to satisfy the exquisite
sense of justice of journalists who seem unable to distinguish between
barbarism and justice, even when barbarians like Alcala laugh in their faces?
We know that even the barbarian has a claim on our honor, which is why we
afford justice, in the form of lengthy trials and hearings, to people like
Ross, Alcala and the two barbarians who descended on Dr. Pettit’s home in
Cheshire. But why should any of these people have a claim on our mercy? It has
been suggested by some who wink at the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion
that the state is committing a form of murder when it executes men like Alcala
who, convicted of multiple murders, laugh in the face of justice. What
amenities should Alcala be afforded in prison that he might be deprived of when
he fails to observe the etiquette that governs life in prison without parole on
death row? And what should we call death row after death on the row has been
legally abolished by the scourged consciences of Lawlor and McDonald?
In June of 2009, someone over in the legislature asked a lawyer connected with
the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) for a report
on the appeals process and the status of appeals for Daniel Webb.
Senior Attorney Christopher Reinhart was happy to oblige. His report is a
record of Connecticut’s barbaric treatment of Webb:
You asked about the appeals process for death row inmates
and for the status of appeals by Daniel Webb.
Attached is OLR report 2009-R-0178 which describes the death penalty appeals
process.
The following lists important dates in Daniel Webb's case.
● Offense committed: August 24, 1989
● Sentenced to death: September 12, 1991
● Connecticut Supreme Court ruling on appeal affirms the conviction and
death sentence but requires a new Superior Court hearing on the
constitutionality of lethal injection: July 30, 1996 (238 Conn. 389)
● Connecticut Supreme Court affirms the Superior Court's ruling upholding the
use of lethal injection: February 15, 2000 (252 Conn. 128)
● U. S. Supreme Court denies petition appealing the Connecticut Supreme
Court's ruling: October 2, 2000
● State habeas corpus petition filed: October 17, 2000
● State habeas trial completed: January 25, 2007
In addition, Daniel Webb is one of nine death row inmates involved in a
state habeas corpus petition that consolidates all racial disparity claims by
inmates sentenced to death (In re: Claims of Racial Disparity in Death Penalty
Cases).
It is difficult to predict when Webb's case may end. If the Superior Court
does not grant Webb's state habeas petition, he can appeal the court's ruling
through the Connecticut courts and, if unsuccessful, appeal to the U. S.
Supreme Court. If Webb is unsuccessful on these appeals, he can then file a
federal habeas corpus petition in federal district court. That petition can be
appealed through the federal courts to the U. S. Supreme Court. Additional
state or federal habeas petitions may be possible depending on the circumstances.
If all these petitions fail, the state can carry out the death penalty.
But if Webb is successful in one of his petitions, a court could overturn
his conviction or death sentence. A court could require a new trial if it
overturns the conviction or a new sentencing hearing if it overturns the death
sentence. If there is a new conviction or sentence, the appeals process would
start over again.
Lawlor told Lovallo during his interview that Connecticut’s death penalty law
was virtually inoperable. It is the considered opinion of both co-chairs of the
Judicial Committee, Lawlor and McDonald, that Connecticut prisoners on death
row can only be executed if, like Ross, they demand to be executed. And even
then, court justices such as Chatigny are waiting behind the curtain to poke
sticks into the slow turning wheels of justice.
In May 2009, Lawlor
was quoted on the point by the New Haven Register:
Brushing aside the “philosophical debate,” Lawlor pointed out that “as a
practical matter, no one is going to be executed in Connecticut unless they
want to be, like Michael Ross.” And he went on to express a touching concern
for families emotionally brutalized by long delays of justice: “It is the
ultimate cruel and unusual punishment to let (the victims’ families) believe,
to hold out hope, that a death penalty will be imposed when the people behind
it know it will never happen.”
Hayes now threatens to derail the capital punishment derailment process.
It won’t be long before some outraged ethicist writes up a commentary patiently
explaining to the survivors of Alcada’s 130 victims, all yearning forlornly for
justice, that they and not Alcala are the real barbarians among us. It is no
longer necessary to think in an ordered way about questions of justice,
vengeance, mercy and the rest of it: In a society in which journalist eat and
regurgitate the brains of other journalists, one simply waits for the talking
points to appear in the media. These bright little bumper sticker thoughts then
maybe molded into rhetorical bullets and shot at non-barbarians like Lovallo,
who has shown himself to be uncomfortable with cant.
What are you going to do? No one can get executed. The state is barbaric.
Execution is barbaric. We’re all barbarians.
The usually claptrap.
The bill to abolish the death penalty was passed by the state legislature and
vetoed by Gov. Jodi Rell in May, 2009.
Co-chair of the judiciary committee Andrew McDonald, one of the bill’s chief
proponents expressed a preference for life imprisonment over the death penalty
because he thought “death is too kind for some of these defendants,” another
bumper-sticker thought that allows an opponent of the death penalty to slather
himself with concern for the victims of convicted murderers, any one of whom,
unlike McDonald, would rationally prefer life in prison with amenities to death
without amenities.
Joshua Komisarjevsky, accused with Hayes in the Cheshire murders, strongly
disagrees with the co-chair of the judiciary committee. Komisarjevsky’s
lawyer, attorney Jeremiah Donovan, told the Associated Press early in
April that his client would only change his not guilty plea if the state agreed
not to pursue a death penalty
Said Donovan, “We said during the very first appearance in court and we
continue to say that we would plead guilty to all the charges so long as the
state didn't insist upon the death of Joshua.”
After passage of the bill in May 2009, McDonald addressed the prospect of a
gubernatorial veto. This was a historic day for our chamber and for our state,”
he enthused. “I would encourage the governor to take some time and reflect on
the magnitude of what the people’s chambers have said today, and to consider
anew the continued viability or utility of the death penalty in a civilized
society.”
Elections, which hold out the prospect of political demise for incumbents, are
on the way, and legislators who voted in favor of the abolition of the death
penalty can always be voted out of office.
Comments
The bottom line is that a stronger death penalty will not prevent more tragedies like the one in Cheshire.
A few years ago, a man named James Tillman was exonerated by DNA evidence for a rape he did not commit. He had 18 years of liberty stripped away from him by the state. More recently, a judge ordered that George Gould and Ron Taylor, convicted murderers, be released after the key state 's witness recanted her story. These men have had 16 years of liberty taken by the state.
These cases highlight the fallibility of our justice system. You say that you cherish liberty. So long as our justice system is administered by mortals, there will be a risk, remote nonetheless, that an innocent man will find himself on death row. The sense of justice and retribution that a family and society gains from a guilty man being put to death can not possibly outweigh the risk of causing an innocent man to suffer the ultimate loss of liberty by being put to death.
I would have you notice that this article is not a defense of the death penalty. It argues against certain arguments used to abolish the penalty, which is not the same thing. Take the notion of deterrence. No laws, so far as I know, successfully deter specific crimes. Were that the case, we would have no need of lawyers after a law had been broken and was sufficiently punished. Life in prison for capital murder is no more a deterrent than capital punishment, and yet no one argues that life in prison should be abolished because, though murderers have been committed under the law, other murderers continue to murder. Webb’s death sentence did not deter him from attacking a guard on death row.
I do believe there are strong arguments that have been advanced in favor of abolition. The Catholic Church’s argument is very persuasive, but only for theists, and especially for Catholics who believe the state has an interest in protecting life from birth to death. Believe it or not, there are still many observant Catholics in the state. Albert Camus argued persuasively against the death penalty in France in one of his essays.
My ambition here was simply to expose cul de sacs. I am not satisfied that I have been successful. But we ought to throw the deterrence nonsense out the window. No one argues that punishments against bank robbers ought to be abolished because criminals continue to rob banks, oblivious of the deterrent nature of the punishments.
Practical questions intrude. What do you do with a lifer who commits a murder in prison? Webb was nearly successful in doing so. I wish Lavallo had asked Lawlor that question. I should have liked to hear his answer. If a lifer successfully arranges a contract killing of a judge who presided over his trial, would an additional life term tacked on to his life term be just punishment?
Your point is a good one: Some people are unjustly punished, and capital punishment is qualitatively different than other punishments because it entails a loss of life and therefore the impossibility of making amends when innocent people are punished. In this case, you would have to show me that death penalty prosecution in Connecticut is likely to lead to error. That’s a tough case to make. If you were in Texas, it would be a snap.
“Mad Dog” Taborsky was found guilty twice on capital murder charges. Had he been given a life sentence the first time, he still would have been released to commit murder – and multiple murders at that – a second time. What would you have done in his case?
And then there is Alcala – a human billboard for capital punishment. He confessed to 30 murders and is suspected of committing many more. What punishment would you prescribe for multiple murderers such as Alcala? Are there no crimes heinous enough to warrant a death penalty?