| |||||
News Articles10-26-98-- The death penalty already is law in the state, but passage of the amendment would put it beyond the reach of the state's Supreme Court and allow the continued use of the state's 75-year-old electric chair unless the U.S. Supreme Court bans it. The amendment also would revise the state's definition of cruel and/or unusual punishment to simply cruel and unusual as defined by the federal court. Amendment Two has sparked the most intense legal wrangling of the 4 amendments on the ballot. Opponents recently asked Florida justices to remove it from the ballot. Justices refused and told lawyers to take it to circuit court. On Friday, a Tallahassee judge refused to remove it. Attorneys say they will appeal. While parts of the amendment may seem a matter of semantics, opponents warn that its effect could be far-reaching. "We've got an amendment here that really doesn't tell the voters what is going to take place in terms of change in the Constitution and we want voters to reject it," said D. Michael McCarron, executive director of the Florida Catholic Conference. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida also opposes it. "It is worded to suggest it's a referendum on the death penalty and it really isn't," said Larry Spalding, the ACLU's legislative staff counsel. "If this thing is defeated 10-1, we still have a death penalty. What it is is a bill to preserve or protect the electric chair and that to me is just a bizarre thing to put in a state constitution." Legislators sponsored the amendment after repeated challenges to the constitutionality of the electric chair stalled executions for more than a year. Death row attorneys argued that, when Pedro Medina's head caught fire in a March 1997 execution, that met the standard of cruel or unusual punishment. Florida justices eventually voted 4-3 to uphold use of the chair. Initially legislators considered replacing the chair with lethal injection, but ultimately passed a law making lethal injection the state's means of execution only if the courts banned the chair. Rep. Victor Crist, R-Temple Terrace, argues that the amendment simply reinforces what the law already allows and clears up ambiguities that consistently provide grounds of appeals to defense lawyers. "People who are saying these things are diehard opponents to the death penalty, who are overreaching in every direction to try and derail capital punishment," he said. But opponents say the amendment does more than just reinforce the death penalty without adequately informing voters. The second sentence of the amendment says capital punishment would be the authorized punishment for "crimes designated by the legislature." "In doing so, and this is open to interpretation by the court, but an English teacher would say new power is going to the legislature that would create a breach in the separation of powers we now have," McCarron said. "There's no reflection of that in the summary or title." Says Crist: "The legislature already designates who qualifies for capital punishment....We're not changing anything here. It wasn't our intent. It was to provide insurance that the death penalty stays intact." Opponents also say changing the definition of cruel and unusual punishment to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation further restricts the powers of the Florida Supreme Court. Without the word "or," the Florida Supreme Court no longer can review sentences for proportionality, which ensures that crimes of similar circumstances receive the same punishment. "Proportionality is not a right, nor is it a law," Crist said. "It was never meant to be an option." (source: Palm Beach Post)
Group fights amendment on death penalty While supporters say a proposed constitutional amendment would protect the death penalty from challenge, opponents say that's misleading. By AMY HERDY © St. Petersburg Times, published October 25, 1998 UNIVERSITY NORTH -- A couple of weeks ago, death penalty opponent Abraham Bonowitz started out with 500 signs. Last week he was down to fewer than 200. Their message, spelled out in bold blue and white, is hard to miss as Bonowitz and a small group of volunteers plant them along north Tampa's main thoroughfares. "Vote NO on No. 2," the signs say, "It's overkill!" Bonowitz, director of the Texas-based Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has come to Tampa to lead a battle against Amendment 2, referred to by supporters as a way to protect the death penalty. He and a small band of volunteers are going door to door to convince voters that the amendment is only unnecessary grandstanding by politicians trying to appear tough on crime. The yard signs include a toll-free number that rings in Vote No's makeshift office on Morris Bridge Road, where volunteers deliver their take on the amendment, one of 13 on next month's ballot. "It's a total hoodwink," Bonowitz says of part of the amendment's title, "Preservation of the death penalty." "There is no threat to the death penalty," said Bonowitz, who grew up in Ohio but who has lived in several states and who said he recently registered to vote in Florida. "It doesn't have to be enshrined in the Constitution -- we already have it in law." Bonowitz and his group, while supporting a state-wide effort, have focused their campaign in the neighborhoods of state House District 60, which includes Temple Terrace, the University of South Florida area and parts of Lutz and north Tampa. They chose District 60, Bonowitz said, because its representative, Victor Crist, R-Temple Terrace, author of Amendment 2, won re-election unopposed, so their efforts can't be seen as partisan support for an opponent. Crist doesn't buy that explanation. He called Bonowitz's group's efforts politically motivated and its arguments frivolous. Crist said he wrote the amendment after a legal challenge to Florida's use of the electric chair last year lost by a narrow margin. "Every time someone gets sentenced to death, they appeal the constitutionality of the death penalty," Crist said, "because it's not in the Constitution." The amendment would help end expensive appeals whose only purpose is to buy a death row inmate more time, Crist said. The amendment's clearest legal implication would be changing the standard under which Florida's high court would decide when a punishment, for any crime, is unconstitutional. Florida currently prohibits punishment that is either cruel or unusual. Amendment 2 would make any challenge meet the federal Constitution's higher threshold of cruel and unusual, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bonowitz calls that "a clear abdication of the power of the Florida Supreme Court." Without Amendment 2, Crist said, Florida's death penalty remains at risk of being overturned by the state Supreme Court. "Every time the court meets to render a decision on it, it's potentially in jeopardy," he said. Bonowitz disagrees. "That's ludicrous," he said. "Death penalty statutes in every state, including Florida, have been well tested. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has said the death penalty is not going anywhere." Bonowitz says Amendment 2 supporters really just want to preserve the electric chair as Florida's method of execution and brag about being tough on crime. According to Bonowitz's group, three-quarters of Floridians responding to a poll said they favored lethal injection to carry out the death penalty. Crist insists his motivations were not political. "I did not do this for hype. I did not do this for attention," he said. Rather, Amendment 2 was "insurance" for Florida's death penalty, which Crist calls "the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime." But "Old Sparky's" role in that punishment has been subject to increasing attack. In a 4-3 decision last year, the Florida Supreme Court upheld use of the electric chair in a challenge stemming from a March 1997 execution in which flame erupted from the condemned inmate's head. The Legislature responded with a law authorizing use of lethal injection as an execution method, should electrocution ever be ruled unconstitutional, and with Amendment 2. Bonowitz calls the move to elevate execution to the Constitution an admission of failure by lawmakers. "It's the ultimate failure to have to kill people," Bonowitz said, and the enormous amount of money used to uphold the death penalty could instead be used to create social programs that deal with prevention of violence. "Third grade is where we have to start." Crist said Bonowitz's group is trying to get a court to take the amendment off the ballot at the last minute because it opposes all capital punishment. The challenge was actually filed by a group of religious organizations and ministers. Randall Berg, a South Florida lawyer who represents the religious group, asked the Florida Supreme Court to remove Amendment 2 from the ballot because it is misleading. Berg says that many voters will get the impression that if they don't vote for Amendment 2, the death penalty would disappear. For Bonowitz and members of Vote No on No. 2, the amendment is useless constitutional clutter that will not prevent crime. "The state is saying they have to kill people to keep me safe."
10-29-98-- Religious leaders who oppose making Florida the only state to guarantee the death penalty in its constitution are waging a court battle to remove a proposal from Tuesday's ballot. They say Revision 2, "Preservation of the death penalty," is misleading because it would not preserve anything -- the death penalty is alive and well. What it would do is add the wrong kind of symbol to a document in which it does not belong, the opponents say. "There's not a country in the world that has the death penalty as an integral part of its constitution," said the Rev. Fred Morris, executive director of the Florida Council of Churches. The revision is one of 4 constitutional changes proposed by the legislature that voters must accept or reject, along with 9 proposals from the Constitution Revision Commission. On Wednesday, the clerics' challenge landed back in the Florida Supreme Court, where it was 1st filed on Oct. 9 by lawyers from the Florida Justice Institute in Miami. A Leon County Circuit judge refused to remove Revision 2 from the ballot, leading to the current appeal. Now the high court has only 3 working days to act before the election. The clerics, representing Quakers, Catholics and several Protestant denominations, say Revision 2 is a power grab by legislators who fear the Florida Supreme Court may go soft on their preferred execution method, the electric chair. "Politicians have found that this scare tactic enables them to get votes," said Morris, one of the plaintiffs in the clerics' lawsuit. Once a provision is part of the constitution, it is much more difficult to change than a statute. No matter what the justices think of legislators' motives, they must measure Revision 2 against a state law that says ballot titles and summaries have to explain what a proposal would do in clear and unambiguous language. The wording of Revision 2 fails that test because it would not actually preserve the death penalty, the opponents argue. "If it wins or loses, the death penalty remains," said Thomas Horkan, general counsel to the Florida Catholic Conference and one of the plaintiffs. Also, the title and summary do not disclose that courts would lose the ability to compare punishments in all criminal cases, he said. "It takes away the protection against disproportionate sentences," said Horkan. "That's what the courts have used in cases where, for example, the burglary of an auto in Pensacola brought 20 years and the same crime in Miami got 6 months or a year." Opponents say Revision 2 misleads, finally, because it does not disclose that the legislature would be able to expand execution methods and the class of crimes subject to the death penalty. The governor and courts would no longer be able to stop them. "The legislature is bypassing the checks and balances that are normally in these items," said Morris. (source: Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel)
Temple Terrace Beacon: 10/28/98 "VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT #2" CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERED IN TEMPLE TERRACE Residents of Temple Terrace have noticed hundreds of blue "Vote No On #2" yard signs which began popping up throughout the city about 10 days ago. Registered voters in Temple Terrace are receiving visits and mail about proposed Florida Constitutional Amendment #2 from campaign volunteers seeking to ensure voters can make an informed decision on election day. "Amendment #2 has a deceptive ballot title, 'Preservation of the Death Penalty: U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of Cruel and Unusual,'" said Abe Bonowitz, political director of the campaign. "In fact, nothing in this amendment is necessary. The death penalty is not in jeopardy. This campaign is designed to help voters get the facts about the amendment," stated Bonowitz. Volunteers are working on this statewide public education campaign out of donated office space at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tampa on Morris Bridge Rd. "The goal of the intense local effort is to demonstrate to Florida legislators that when the voters know the truth about deceptive legislation, they will oppose it. We believe that most Florida voters are very much like those here in Temple Terrace," said Bonowitz. "Florida voters are smart people who want sound public policy, and no one has given them straight, factual information. Informed voters will vote NO on Amendment #2." Temple Terrace area residents are invited to stop by the office, or visit www.cuadp.org/florida/ to receive a free line-by-line analysis of Amendment #2, as well as yard signs and bumper stickers. The campaign also seeks local volunteers.
Nov. 2, 1998--- FLORIDA: In Miami, a Florida court refused Monday to block a referendum on a proposal allowing the state to execute people by other means if its notorious electric chair is banned, a court clerk said. A day before voters were scheduled to vote on the "Preservation of the Death Penalty Amendment," the Leon County Circuit Court in Tallahassee dismissed a lawsuit asking it to strip the measure from the ballot. The amendment would permit Florida to carry out executions by any method not prohibited under the U.S. constitution. The state's electric chair has come under scrutiny since an incident in which flames leapt from the head of a man during his execution in 1997. It was the 2nd time in 10 years that flames erupted from a prisoner's head during a Florida execution. An interdenominational group of ministers and religious leaders sued last month to block the vote. They argued that the ballot language misleads voters to believe the death penalty would be abolished if the referendum fails. The circuit court judges refused to treat the lawsuit as "an issue of great public importance," which would have required a speedy ruling. Their dismissal did not address the merits of the suit and was without prejudice, meaning the lawsuit could be refiled later. Lawmakers were concerned the problems could eventually prompt a court to rule that the electric chair violated the U.S. constitutional ban on cruel and unusualpunishment. The proposed amendment would permit Florida to carry out executions by any method not prohibited under the U.S. constitution. Florida has executed 39 people in its electric chair since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. (source: Reuters) 3 Nov. 1998 Bid to Block Revision #2 Unsuccessful Noreen Marcus South Florida Sun-Sentinel A challenge by members of the clergy to one of the proposed constitutional changes on today's ballot failed Monday when the Florida Supreme Court declined to consider it. Quaker, Catholic and Protestant religious leaders sought to knock revision #2, "preservation of the death penalty" off the ballot. They said it was misleading. Revision #2, they said, is actually an attempt by the legislature, which proposed the change, to keep the court from blocking death by electrocution. The Justices did not explain their unanimous ruling. They did, however, leave open the possibility they would consider a challenge to a victorious revision #2. "If it passes, I am sure there will be a challenge," said Abe Bonowitz, Director of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty in Tampa. The group supported the clerics' court action. The Rev. Fred Morris, executive director of the Florida Council of Churches and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said he was disappointed in the courts decision. "They did not even look at it in terms of the merits of our argument," he said.
South Florida Sun-Sentinel 11/4/98 Constitution Gets Record Overhaul [This is from a long article on all of the constitutional amendments and revisions] Preserving the Death Penalty Amendment #2 was approved by a public that overwhelmingly favors capital punishment. It seeks to ensure that death sentences can continue to be carried out in Florida even if the state supreme court, or a federal court, should decide that electrocution violates the federal prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment. Opponants of the death penalty argued that even people who favor it should reject the measure because it was unnecessary to put it in the constitution. "If anything, this is going to open more legal challenges to the death penalty, at least in the short run. It gums up the works," said Abe Bonowitz, Director of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.
Death penalty foes claim small victory By AMY HERDY © St. Petersburg Times, published November 8, 1998 In the weeks preceding Election Day, a grass-roots organization canvassed Tampa neighborhoods to get out their message: Vote No on Amendment 2. The measure was aimed at putting the death penalty in the state constitution. Opponents who said it was unnecessary political grandstanding concentrated their campaign in the district of the amendment's author, Rep. Victor Crist, R-Temple Terrace. With the amendment passing easily Tuesday -- nearly 73 percent voted yes, statewide -- it would seem the group failed. Not so, said anti-death penalty activist Abe Bonowitz. He sees victory in the precinct his group targeted, 655, where 54 percent of the voters, voted against the amendment. "So we hope to go to legislators and say, "Don't look at this as a vote carrier, because we're going to go back to your precinct and educate your people."' If that sounds like a threat, Bonowitz said, "That's exactly what it is. We don't think killing should be part of our public policy." For Crist, the group's effort was "frivolous and fruitless." The amendment, he said, was a way to stop death penalty appeals based on the argument that capital punishment is unconstitutional. "The bottom line is, the amendment passed," Crist said. "Look at the numbers. More people voted for that amendment than any other." Besides, Crist said, "How do they know they were effective? How do they know what the vote would have been" in precinct 655 without their campaigning? Crist said the precinct has a high number of middle-age, professional women -- a profile that typically votes for liberal causes. Yes, said Bonowitz, but so do bordering precincts where the measure passed easily. He said that proves his group's voter education effort made a difference. "The bottom line is, people are lacking information," he said, because the amendment read "To preserve the death penalty" when it was in fact not in jeopardy. The amendment's real aim, Bonowitz said, was to preserve the use of Florida's electric chair. The Vote No group's efforts are not over, he said, with the outcome of a pending lawsuit seeking removal of the amendment from the ballot still undecided. Click HERE For More News Articles | |||||
|
| |||||
