|
My name is Dr. Roger Thomas. (www.oocities.org/Roger_Thomas_edu.) I am the author of Death in Pennsylvania: James V. Bennett Revisited. Bennett was Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 30[1] years, and made eight specific recommendations about the death penalty from that experience. I applied his recommendations to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am speaking
today as a representative of A United Methodist Witness in Pennsylvania, and
of the Western Pennsylvania Board
of Church and Society. We would like to begin by celebrating the Senate’s action in unanimously passing Senate Bill 589. If it is signed, it will make DNA accessible to both sides. DNA will be like fingerprints, HLA, ballistics, or any other forensic evidence which science may develop. We would also like to celebrate this Committee’s action on SB 869. It will do a great deal to improve the quality of counsel in capital cases. Currently, counsel who represent defendants in capital cases are 6 times more likely to be disciplined by the Bar Association or the Supreme Court than the general Bar membership. We pray that it does not suffer the same fate as SB 1496 of Session 2000. Positive guidance on what is clear and convincing evidence. We are here today to specifically
discuss SB 26, regarding the death penalty for people who are mentally
retarded. It is our prayer that the
Bill will pass, and be signed into law.
The real function of SB 26 is to give Pennsylvania’s judges positive guidance to interpret 42 CPSA 9711, on the “Sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree.” One of the Mitigating Circumstances in that Act is that “(3) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.” Senate Bill 26 provides a three-fold test to positively identify one class of people who cannot “appreciate the criminality of their conduct.” According to the Bill: “a person with mental retardation means
an individual who has significantly sub-average intellectual functioning as
evidenced by 1) an intelligence quotient of 70 or below on an individually
administered intelligence quotient test and 2) impairment in adaptive
behavior, and that 3) the mental retardation is manifested before the
individual attains 22 years of age.” These are correct
criteria. They accurately reflect those of the American Association of Mental
Retardation. (www.aamr.org) This Association was founded in 1876 as an international
multidisciplinary association of professionals. It has had responsibility for
defining mental retardation since 1921.
I was one of the people who helped develop this standard while I was
at the Arizona Training School-Tucson in 1972. At that time, we were trying to develop operative criteria to
more accurately distinguish “borderline,” “mild,” “moderate,” “severe,” and
“profound” retardation. We were
interested in this because precise, objective IQ determinations are very
difficult among retarded people. We
added behavioral performance levels to the objective testing. We identified 10 adaptive skill areas:[2] ·
Communication ·
Self-care ·
Home
living ·
Social
skills ·
Community
use ·
Self-direction ·
Health
and safety ·
Functional
academics ·
Leisure,
and ·
Work A person who is deficient in 2 of these skill areas is
defined as retarded. The more skill
areas they are deficient in, the greater their retardation. The
three-fold test set out in SB 26 defines a person with at least mild
retardation. Our existing statute requires “judges and
juries to determine the relevance of mental retardation as a mitigating
circumstance on a case-by-case basis.”
SB 26 would give judges specific criteria for retardation which could
be ascertained through objective, forensic evidence. The judge would be able to rule on the
point, as a matter of law, in a procedural hearing. If the case went to trial, the judge would retain the option of
instructing the jury of the finding. Another attribute of SB 26 is that it
only defines one specific class of people who cannot “appreciate the
criminality of their conduct.” The
judge and jury retain the ability to determine whether other individuals fit
under the third mitigating circumstance.
There are people who develop mental problems after age 22. “An ordinary adult cannot
suddenly "become" mentally retarded. An adult may, for reasons
related to accident or illness, suffer a catastrophic loss in intellectual
functioning and adaptive skills, but this would not make him or her
"mentally retarded," since by definition mental retardation starts
during childhood. One implication of this is that mental retardation is
virtually impossible for an adult to fake: when evaluating whether an adult
is mentally retarded, testers look not only at I.Q. test results, but also at
school reports, childhood test records, and other evidence that would show
whether his or her intellectual and adaptive problems developed during
childhood.” Beyond Reason http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ Under
SB 26, the judge and jury would retain the right to determine if a person who
had mental difficulties - outside the definition of mental retardation - was
able “to appreciate
the criminality of their conduct.” We urge you to pass SB 26, if only
because of the merits of its provisions. Capacity There
is a larger reason to support the Bill. It lies with the definition of First
Degree Murder. Pennsylvania’s statute
is precise. 18 CPSA 2502.Murder (a) Murder in the first degree. -A criminal homicide constitutes murder in the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing. (d) Definitions. -"Intentional killing." Killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.[3] A person who is mentally retarded is substantially incapable of
such an “intentional,” “willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.” People who are mentally retarded have a poor understanding of cause and effect, and very little appreciation for the consequences of their actions. Almost by definition, they lack the ability to formulate and implement a plan of homicide. They do not appreciate the criminality of their behavior. They are effectively incapable of first-degree homicide. They are therefore incapable of committing the only crime for which execution is available. The Federal Statute provides an interesting alternative criterion for retardation: “A sentence of death
shall not be carried out upon a person who, as a result of mental disability,
lacks the mental capacity to understand the death penalty and why it was
imposed on that person.” 18
USCA 3596[c], 1994 Under
the Federal standard, a person would not be eligible for execution if he
wanted to “hurry up and get (the execution) over with so I can go home and
have dinner with my family.” Nor
would someone who wanted the guard to hold his sandwich until he got
back. Mental
retardation afflicts somewhere between 2.5 and 3 percent of the U.S.
population. Currently,
more than 300 death row inmates are known to have mental retardation. This means that about 10% of the American death
row population may be afflicted with mental retardation. Our Department of Corrections estimates
that 24 of Pennsylvania’s death row inmates have mental retardation. That too would be 10%. 44
people with metal retardation have been executed in 13 different states since
the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
14 of these executions have been within the past 5 years. 2 mentally retarded people have been released
from Pennsylvania’s death row on evidence of their retardation. They had been convicted and sentenced
under the present statute, yet they both had IQs in the 60s. Retarded
people tend to be easily
led, and have a poor understanding of either cause/effect or of the
consequences of their actions. They
often have low self-esteem, and a poor tolerance for frustration. Their impulsiveness and submissiveness
means that they are easily convinced to do things they shouldn’t. These are the very behaviors that can
bring them into conflict with the judiciary. The mentally retarded have a willingness
to talk, and a desire to please people in authority. They often acquiesce to the wishes of
people they believe are influential.
This means that they are likely to confess to things they are led to
believe. We have an example in
Pennsylvania where someone confessed to a crime in order to re-gain access to
his crayons. Let me give you some other examples: Beyond Reason http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ 1) Georgia’s Jerome Bowden signed a
murder confession because the police told him it would be to his benefit. The
confession was the sole basis of his execution. Jerome could not even read his confession 2) Virginia executed Morris Odell
Mason in 1985. His I.Q. was 62-66.
Before his execution, Mason asked one of his legal advisors for advice on
what to wear to his funeral. On his way
to the execution chamber he told another inmate, "When I get back, I'm
gonna show him how I can play basketball as good as he can." Mason clearly did not understand his
impending fate. 3) At a 1979 clemency hearing, the
Chair of the Louisiana pardons board asked Robert Wayne Sawyer if he knew
what murder was. Sawyer responded,
"That's when the breath leaves your body." In response to a subsequent question he
clarified that "it's when you stab someone and the breath leaves the
body." When asked what happens if someone is shot, Sawyer answered,
"I just don't know." 4) Earl Washington was diagnosed as
mentally retarded as a child. After hours of police interrogation, he
confessed to a murder he did not commit. According to a former employer,
Washington was so suggestible and eager to please that "You could get
[him] to confess that he walked on the moon." In an effort to show the invalidity of Washington's confession,
his trial lawyer would "Pick a day, any day, and tell Washington that
day was [his] birth date. After prodding and cajoling, Washington would
accept the false date." 5) One psychiatrist testified about
a capital defendant with an I.Q. between 35 and 45: "[People with mental
retardation try] to go along with people that they suspect are in
authority. For example, I asked [the
defendant] where we were when I saw him, and he obviously didn't know, so I
asked him if we were in Atlanta and he said ‘Yes, we are in Atlanta.’ In
fact, we were in Birmingham, Alabama.
I could have said New York and he would have said ‘Sure, New
York’...." 6) Herbert Welcome was convicted of
murdering his aunt and her boyfriend in 1981 in Louisiana. Welcome is mentally retarded and,
according to psychiatric testimony presented at his trial, has a mental age
of 8. He smiled incessantly during his capital murder trial, an almost
involuntary defense mechanism developed in response to a lifetime of
taunts. As his defense attorney
noted, "Many people with retardation smile a lot...They are anxious for
approval, and have learned that smiling is one way to get [it]. But they
don't have the judgment to know when to smile." The prosecutor argued
that Welcome's smiles showed that he lacked remorse for his crimes. He was
sentenced to death and remains today on death row. 7) Both Barry Lee Fairchild,
convicted of murder in Arkansas, and Billy Dwayne White, convicted of murder
in Texas, slept during their capital trials -- eloquent evidence of the
failure of these two men with mental retardation to appreciate the
significance of the criminal proceedings against them. Trial counsel was not aware that they were
mentally retarded. But their tendency
to sleep peacefully during their trials helped alert post-conviction lawyers
to their mental disability. White
snored loudly during the penalty phase of his trial. The prosecutor argued that his conduct
indicated his lack of remorse for his crime and his lack of respect for the
criminal justice system. Both Fairchild and White were sentenced to death and
executed. 8) "Joe," a mentally
retarded man, admired tough-talking local drug dealers and sought to befriend
them. One day his drug dealer
"friends" gave Joe a gun and instructed him to go into a store and
take money from the clerk. They told
him, "Don't shoot the guy unless you have to." Joe hid for a while, and then entered the
store. He forgot his instructions.
"He panicked and couldn't remember the plan. He shot the guy and forgot to rob the
store." 9)
Billy
Dwayne White, a retarded teenager, allied himself with older men in the
neighborhood, one of who testified: "When Billy started hanging around
us he was real scared and timid. We
told him that he would have to change.
We taught him how to steal. We
would get him to do things that were wrong by telling him that he was a
coward if he didn't, and that he could only be in our gang if he showed us
that he had courage...we could persuade him to do these things because he was
easily misled." 10)
William
Smith, I.Q. 65, tried to take money from "old Dan," a friendly
elderly storekeeper he had known all his life. When Dan resisted, Smith panicked and lashed out, killing him. 11)
Luis
Mata was executed in Arizona in 1996.
Mata suffered organic brain damage from multiple medical traumas and
had an I.Q. tested variously between 63 and 70. 12)
Freddie
Lee Hall, with an I.Q. of 60, is on death row in Florida, convicted of
killing a young pregnant woman 13)
Robert
Anthony Carter was convicted of a murder committed when he was
seventeen. He was executed in
1998. He had mental retardation, and
suffered from several serious head injuries as a child. 14)
Nollie
Lee Martin had an I.Q. of 59 and was further mentally impaired as a result of
several serious head injuries he had received in childhood. He came from a family with a history of
schizophrenia. His medical history
included psychosis, suicidal depression, paranoid delusions, and
self-mutilation. He was convicted in Florida in 1978. Martin spent more than
thirteen years on death row mostly incoherent, and rocking back and forth on
the floor of his cell. He required
constant medication for his mental illness and hallucinations. He beat his head and fists against the
cell wall and would mutilate himself.
He was executed in 1992. 15)
Emile
Duhamel was convicted in 1984. He had
an I.Q. of 56, an organic brain disease, and suffered from dementia and
paranoid schizophrenia. After a
decade of legal proceedings over his competency, Duhamel died in his Texas
death row cell in 1998. These
15 examples have been offered as an adequate, random sample. They show that mentally retarded people do
not understand either the criminality of their conduct nor their penalty. An exhaustive list of examples would be
far too extensive. Pennsylvania’s
Joey Miller and Daniel
Saranchak could also be added to the list. Teja
Stokes is executive director of the “Arc of Virginia.” The group advocates for more than 1,400
mentally retarded and developmentally disabled persons and their
families. She has worked with
developmentally disabled adults for more than 10 years. Her position on capital punishment for the
retarded is clear, "They should receive punishment, but not the ultimate
punishment." North
Carolina’s Sherman Skipper is an example.
When North Carolina barred execution of the mentally retarded, his
sentence was changed from death to two life terms. “He has the mind of a
first grader and an IQ of 69. Skipper deserved to be punished for his crimes,
but he certainly didn’t deserve the death penalty.” The
Beaver County Times, December 21, 2001. Mentally
retarded offenders may need to be punished.
They may need to be contained to protect the society. This does not warrant their execution. People with mental retardation are not
capable of devising and implementing a plan of homicide. They do not meet criteria set out in the
homicide statute. We urge you to pass SB 26, if
only because the mentally retarded are not capable of intentional homicide,
and do not understand their punishment. The
General Will There is yet another reason,
beyond the language of the statute, and the capabilities of the
offenders. In 1976, Justice Powell wrote Gregg v Georgia and re-instated capital punishment. The opinion held that capital punishment could be used for two principal social purposes: a) retribution, and b) the deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders. No one seriously argues any more that the
death penalty deters others from crime. http://www.santegidio.org States without the death penalty tend to
have lower homicide rates than demographically similar states which do have
it. Nor does the homicide rate change
if the law is changed. The mentally retarded do not think in
terms of consequences, so they in particular will not be deterred by possible
execution. The only remaining reason to execute a
mentally retarded person is the retribution for an impulsive wrong which the
offender is incapable of understanding.
Neither of Justice Powell’s standards is
met by executing a person who is mentally retarded. They are not deterred by possible execution, and they do not
understand the retribution. The only
way either of Justice Powell’s standards can be met is if “retribution” is
understood to mean “vengeance.” We
prefer not to believe that. Take
the next step in this same line of thinking.
When Justice O’Conner wrote the majority opinion in Penry
v Lynaugh in 1989,
the Court declined to
hold that executing the mentally retarded was cruel and unusual
punishment. The
Court admitted, "mental retardation is a factor that may well lessen a
defendant's culpability for a capital offense." But there was no social consensus on whether executing the retarded
was cruel and unusual punishment. At
the time of that decision, only Maryland and Georgia had statutes specifically
prohibiting their execution. The
Court acknowledged that it was searching for a measure of the “evolving
standards of decency.” That
same year, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution that no one with
mental retardation should be sentenced to death or executed because to do so
would violate contemporary standards of decency. (www.abanet.org) · 38 states passed death penalty statutes after Furman v Georgia was decided in 1972. (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut*, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas*, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire*, New Jersey*, New Mexico*, New York*, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota*, Tennessee*, Texas, Utah Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.) So did The Federal Government* and the US Military* · 8 states and 2 Federal jurisdictions have not had an execution since that time. (See the asterisks * above.) · 16 states, and the District of Columbia do not have death penalty statutes. (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.) ·
16 more states, and the Federal government, have
adopted, or modified, their prohibition against executing the mentally
retarded since Penry was decided. (Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, and
Washington. A second Federal
jurisdiction could be added in that the mentally retarded cannot get into the
military. Bills passed in Texas, Illinois and Oregon were vetoed.) ·
On April 26, 2001, Arizona Governor Jane
Hull signed legislation to ban the state from seeking the death penalty for
persons with mental retardation. The
legislation also prohibits the execution of defendants with mental
retardation who are already on death row.
·
Illinois
has an executive moratorium on capital punishment. ·
Florida
has a judicial moratorium. Governor
Jeb Bush also signed legislation protecting the mentally retarded. ·
The governors in Connecticut and Missouri
are considering Bills to protect the mentally retarded. ·
Virginia’s ban on executing the mentally
retarded has already passed the Senate, and was progressing through the House
of Delegates. The Bill was tabled
pending the US Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v Virginia. The bill's sponsor, Sen. John S. Edwards,
says, "There's a growing awareness of not subjecting mentally retarded
people to the death penalty. It's a
matter of basic humanity." ·
Now
18 of the 38 states that allow executions say the mentally retarded are
exempt. ·
Iowa voters rejected the re-instatement
of the death penalty. · The Constitutionality of 9 death penalty statutes is at issue before the US Supreme Court. (Arizona, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Montana and Nebraska) The decision will affect more than 800 death row inmates, many of who are retarded. Argument will be on April 22, 2002. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/supremecourt.html#upcoming) · Texas is deviant from the pattern. Governor Rick Perry vetoed a Bill to prohibit the execution of the mentally retarded on June 17, 2001. The Bill would have prohibited the death penalty if jurors determined that the defendant is mentally retarded. In vetoing the legislation, Perry stated that although there is no statutory prohibition, "we do not execute mentally retarded murderers [in Texas] today." Without a legislative ban, those with mental retardation can be sentenced to death because jurors are only required to consider a defendant's mental capacity as a mitigating factor during sentencing. Johnny Paul Penry, with an IQ between 50 and 60, would find Governor Perry’s decision surprising. His case is now in its third proceeding. Penry has the functional level of a 7-year-old. Emile Duhamel, who is sited above, would also find Perry’s position surprising. The data can be stated another way. 12 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the death penalty entirely. 2 states have express moratoriums. 8 states and 2 Federal jurisdictions have defacto moratoriums. 18 more states and one Federal jurisdiction specifically prohibit the execution of the retarded. In all, 30 states and all Federal jurisdictions somehow prohibit execution of the retarded. That leaves only 20 states that still allow the retarded to be executed. (Alabama, California, Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming) These states tend to rank in the bottom third of the American Political Science Review’s Innovation and Professionalism scales. Most of their death penalty statutes are on review by the Supreme Court as we speak. The point is
that “The consensus that Justice O’Conner was looking for when Penry was decided in 1989 is now
evident among the states and the Federal jurisdictions.” This movement of the General Will, or the “evolving
standards of decency,” is even reflected among the Supreme Court Justices. http://www.santegidio.org ·
When
North Carolina enacted legislation protecting the mentally retarded the US
Supreme Court discontinued proceedings on McCarver
v North Carolina, and immediately took up Atkins v Virginia. · Justice Powell wrote the majority opinion Gregg v Georgia. He held that execution could be used for retribution, and the deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders. He has since acknowledged that the case was wrongly decided. ·
On February 22, 1994, Justice Harry A.
Blackmun announced that he would "no longer tinker with the machinery of
death." His dissent made clear that the human cost of the death penalty
was too great, that despite all efforts, the capital justice system remained
"fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice, and mistake". Justice Blackmun wrote that "where a
morally irrelevant consideration plays a major role in the determination of
who shall live and who shall die, it suggests that the continued enforcement
of the death penalty in light of its clear and admitted defects is deserving
of a sober second thought." ·
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote
the majority opinion in Penry, has
publicly stated, "After 20 years on (the) high court, I have to
acknowledge that serious questions are being raised about whether the death
penalty is being fairly administered in this country,” O’Connor has long been
considered solidly pro-death penalty. She voiced the court's unwillingness to
get ahead of the state legislatures in Penry,
saying that such a ban did not yet seem to reflect the nation's "evolving
standards of decency." ·
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought up
similar concerns in a speech last April. ·
Justice Stevens has consistently ruled
against the death penalty. He sees
the recent activity in among the states as "a
pendulum swing, (that’s) all in the same direction.” ·
Justice David H. Souter likens the
death-penalty exemption sought for the mentally retarded to that provided to
children. "There ought to be a
cutoff point," Souter said.
"The reason to have a cutoff is to avoid those high-risk
cases." ·
Only Justice Scalia takes the opposite view. As a Catholic, he dissents from the Pope’s
teaching on capital punishment in "Evangelium
Vitae." Since it did not come "ex cathedra," Scalia does not
feel obligated to believe it. He is only required to give it serious
consideration. Scalia said judges who
follow the philosophy that capital punishment is morally wrong should
resign. Sentencing judges, or judges
on duty on appeal panels, can be a) Catholic, b) personally opposed to
capital punishment, yet c) bound by oath to apply the law. If the strain on the conscience is
unbearable, let them resign. We
urge you to pass Senate Bill 26, if only because it reflects the nation’s
evolving sense of decency. This, in
addition to the advantages of the statute and the incapacity of the accused. Concerns We
only have one concern in advocating for Senate Bill 26. We need a critical examination of the
death penalty in Pennsylvania.
Incremental reforms, like SB 589, SB 869, and now SB 26, may encumber
such a general moratorium. SB
589 provides for the admission of DNA evidence. People have told me, “now that we have DNA, no innocent people
will go to jail.” This panacea
attitude is simply mistaken. DNA is
the latest forensic evidence to be admitted into court. It stands equal to any number of other
scientific techniques. DNA has
already freed over 100 people, but the evidence is available in fewer than
10% of the cases. SB
869 provides some training to defense attorneys. As good as the Bill is, it does not meet the American Bar Association Guidelines for
the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases. (www.abanet.org) Now
SB 26 protects one defined class of defenseless people. It also allows the jury to decide whether
other people are incapable of appreciating the criminality of their
conduct. This is a tremendous step
forward. We
still need to examine: (1)
Whether Defendants who are sentenced to
death are in fact guilty of first degree murder; (2)
Whether Defendants in death penalty cases
are provided adequate and experienced counsel and adequate resources for the
defense of their cases at the trial, appellate and post-conviction stages; (3)
Whether race plays an impermissible role
in determining which defendants are sentenced to death; and (4)
Whether death penalty cases are similarly
handled by all district attorneys throughout this Commonwealth. It is
not a coincidence that all 244 of our death row inmates are under some form
of stay. 68%
of all capital judgments were reversed by the courts due to serious error. www.law.columbia.edu/brokensystem2/ It is not a coincidence that the 3 people
we have executed since Gregg v Georgia
have all submitted to execution rather than continue their litigation and
appeals. www.cor.state.pa.us It is
not a coincidence that some 100 death row inmates are without counsel.
www.abanet.org It is
not a coincidence that Philadelphia County, with 1,517,550 people has about
135 inmates on death row. The county with the next highest number of death
row inmates only has 11 people there.
Allegheny County, with 1,281,666 people and a demography similar to Philadelphia, has only
about 10 inmates there. www.cor.state.pa.us It is
not a coincidence that only 74 of our death row inmates are white. www.cor.state.pa.us It is
not a coincidence that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently overturned a
conviction in which the Prosecutor swore off 9 jurors, all of whom were
black. The Beaver County Times There
is a need for critical examination of how the death penalty is applied in
Pennsylvania. Something is amiss, and
incremental changes, like SB 26 and SB 589, SB 869, do not resolve the
underlying problem. Assuming that the
state should retain the right to execute offenders, it has the duty to assure
that the person executed really is the offender. As Rene Batiste says, “The proof should be as certain as the
penalty.” We
pray that you will pass Senate Bill 26, and that you will do so as an
incremental step toward resolving the larger problem. The
same concern can be expressed in a different way. There is a tendency for branches, or agencies, in the
government to postpone action on an issue if they see that the same issue is
also in front of another agency.
There is a possibility that the legislature may put off any action on
SB 26 because the case of Atkins v Virginia is currently in front of
the US Supreme Court. We
are asking you not to table this Bill pending the Atkins decision. The Founding Fathers intended this to be a
government of elected legislators.
They devoted about half of the Constitution to the powers and duties of
the legislature. They intended that
the Courts review legislative behavior to assure that it was
Constitutional. The Court declared
that it was looking for a pattern of behavior among the states which would
indicate the evolving sense of decency.
If SB 26 gets tabled pending the Court decision, the Senate will
communicate a very different standard of decency. We
urge you to pass SB 26 now for all the reasons that we have stated here. Thank
you, Roger Thomas |