What Death Penalty?

(San Quentin, CA)  Associated Press writer Paul Elias recently reported that California's death penalty is "dysfunctional."  Tell us something we don't already know.

  "Only 13 condemned inmates have been executed from the time capital punishment resumed in the state in 1977 until February 2006, when U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel halted executions until prison officials revamped their lethal injection process," the article stated.

  Elias reports that capital cases cost the state an additional $125 million a year to administer and the Department of Corrections has spent $400 million for a new death chamber and death row.  

  I can't help but wonder how many children that money could feed and educate.

  In California, all death penalty cases are automatically appealed and cannot be waived by the inmate who has been sentenced to death.  In fact, the inmate cannot represent him/herself in these appeals.

There's Something Good in Everybody

  I have been corresponding with inmates throughout the United States for decades, primarily to assist with civil and human rights issues, wrongful convictions, and that type of thing.  However, I have also corresponded with "bad guys" because my father (to this day) tells me there is something good in everybody.

  I recently received a letter from one of those "bad guys" (or in this case, a badass mofo), San Quentin death row inmate Daniel Carl Frederickson.

  According to an archived article in the Los Angeles Times, Frederickson shot and killed Santa Ana HomeBase manager Scott Wilson (of Costa Mesa) during a June 13, 1996, botched robbery at the store.  Wilson was 30 at the time and Frederickson was around 33.

  In 1998, Frederickson, who acted as his own fool -- er, I mean attorney -- at trial, was convicted and sentenced to death by an Orange County Superior Court jury.  We have been corresponding sporadically since he's been on death row.

  Although we have been at odds with each other the majority of the time, I have to admit that Frederickson's letter to me in late March presents some interesting and challenging issues (legally and morally) when it comes to California's death penalty.

  In the letter to me, Frederickson says he doesn't want to represent himself, he simply wants to waive all appeals.  "I never asked them to let me represent myself on appeal.  I don't want an appeal, never did . . . . Everything has been against my right to be a man and step up to accept my culpability and punishment.  The system is set up to favor all liars and cowards and unrepentant people of no conscious (sic)."

California Supremes Say Forgeddaboutit!

  "The Supreme Court has received your undated pro se documents . . . in which you again seek to waive or abandon your automatic appeal . . . from the trial court's judgment of death," states a March 16, 2010, letter to Frederickson from Supreme Court of California Automatic Appeals Monitor Robert D. Reichman.  (Gee, is this the guy who always wanted to be hall monitor as a kid?)

  The letter goes on to cite various California cases and statutes that hold solid current law that criminal defendants have no right to "represent himself or herself on appeal" and that the supreme court has sole discretion to appoint "counsel on appeal from a judgment of death."

  Finally, the letter closes: "Your appeal cannot be abandoned or waived.  The documents you submitted will not be filed.  The court will not respond to any further correspondence regarding these issues."

  Personally, I am (and have always been) opposed to the death penalty.  At the same time, since criminal defendants (even those facing the death penalty) have the right to represent themselves at trial, why shouldn't the same hold  true on appeal?  Furthermore, if they want to waive their right to appeal, so what?

  Sorry for sounding like a Republican, but if the State of California were to grant Frederickson's request, it will save the taxpayers (and a nearly bankrupt state) lots of money which could be better spent in other areas of criminal justice.  Isn't that true justice?

Convicts (Even Sex Offenders) Are Entitled to Basic Civil Rights Upon Release

A recent murder of a registered sex offender in California demonstrates that some people just don't get it. Like it or not, once a person is released from jail, they basically are entitled to (or should be) to the same rights as everyone else.

By his own admission, 29-year-old construction worker Ivan Garcia Oliver killed 67-year-old convicted rapist Michael A. Dodele in Lakeport, California, just 35 days after Dodele's release from prison.

A December 10, 2007, article in the Los Angeles Times ("Megan's Law listing may have lead to slaying"), discusses the fact that the killing may have stemmed from a listing in a California Internet database that lists information about registered sex offenders.

I believe the basic concept of Megan's Law is that people be notified and have access to information about registered sex offenders so they can prevent themselves (or children) from being victimized by the offender. Unfortunately, the law has clearly been responsible for the violation of the civil rights of thousands of released offenders.

Not only has the law lead to witch hunts of registered sex offenders throughout the nation, but the information supplied on California's database is very vague and confusing. At quick glance, nearly everyone on the database appears to be a child molester because of the very brief description of the offender's crime(s), which is based on how the penal code is vaguely worded.

I even thought an acquaintance of mine in Palm Springs is a child molester because of how the penal code violation is worded next to his name on the State of California Meagan's Law webiste. Even after reading the penal code in detail, I'm still not sure what's what, and I'm a seasoned paralegal. If I can't figure it out, How on earth do we expect the "average Joe" to interpret the crime descriptions on these public databases?

The killer made the same mistake I did about my acquaintance, and thought Dodele was a child molester. According to the Los Angeles Times article about the killing in Lakeport, Dodele was convicted of violating adults, not children. Unwanted acts against adults and children are both bad, however Michael A. Dodele may still be alive today if it weren't for the sloppiness of California's database. His killer made it clear he went after Dodele because he thought he was a child molester.

I realize that I am in the minority, but whether someone molested, raped, sodomized, killed, stole, whatever; once they are released, they should be treated humanely so long as they are abiding by the rules.

A convict should be permitted to have a place to live, shop, eat, work, etc. without threat of eviction or disruptions from protesters who feel the convict should receive more punishment after their release.

On the flip side, it goes without saying that a child molester should not be permitted to work in a school (or live near one); an embezzler shouldn't be permitted to work in a bank; terrorists shouldn't be permitted to work in airports or for public transit entities.

More food for thought on this very topic is provided by veteran journalist Patt Morrison in her excellent December 13, 2007, commentary published in the Los Angeles Times ("Megan's law of unintended consequences").