When is a killer too young to die?
Posted on 05/24/2002 11:15:01 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
When is a killer too young to die?
Beazley case focuses death penalty debate on age at time of crime
05/24/2002
The approaching execution of a Texas death-row inmate has become a focus of national and international opposition to capital punishment for youthful murderers.
Napoleon Beazley, 25, is scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday for the 1994 shooting death of Tyler businessman John Luttig during a bungled carjacking. Mr. Beazley was 17 at the time.
Prosecutors say Mr. Beazley was legitimately tried as an adult and convicted for a heinous crime and deserves to die.
The European Union, Amnesty International, the American Bar Association and several other groups oppose his execution. Organizations in Texas have clamored for a commutation, depicting Mr. Beazley as an accomplished young man who made one dreadful mistake. Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu and Mexico Ambassador Juan José Bremer Martino, among others, have written letters recently on his behalf.
|
Opponents say offenders who committed their crimes while under the age of 18 should not be held to the same standard as adults.
"In light of the characteristics associated with childhood impulsiveness, lack of self-control, poor judgment we cannot reasonably expect the death penalty to act as a deterrent for other juveniles," American Bar Association president Robert Hirshon wrote in a May 14 letter to Texas officials. "Retribution is also an unsatisfactory justification for the juvenile death penalty. ... A juvenile simply cannot be held to the same degree of culpability and accountability for his or her actions to which we hold an adult."
Attorneys for Mr. Beazley this week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case to determine whether executing an offender who was under 18 at the time of the offense violates constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. They also assert that such executions are contrary to international laws.
Prosecutors, not swayed by the support for Mr. Beazley or the arguments in his behalf, dispute assertions that he was a juvenile when he committed the murder, pointing to state law that allows a 17-year-old to be tried as an adult.
Two lesser-known Texas inmates who committed their crimes at age 17 have execution dates in August: T.J. Jones, who was sentenced to die for killing 75-year-old Willard Lewis Davis of Longview in 1994; and Toronto Patterson, who was sentenced to death after killing his cousin and her two young daughters in Dallas in 1995.
ERICH SCHLEGEL / DMN Death penalty opponents march outside the governor's mansion to protest the planned execution of Napoleon Beazley. |
Mr. Beazley's case has attracted the most attention, in no small measure because of a background that belies many of the stereotypes and commonly held beliefs about death row inmates.
In the East Texas community of Grapeland, Mr. Beazley was an accomplished student and athlete and president of his senior class.
His parents, Ireland and Rena Beazley of Grapeland, pleaded for his life Thursday at a Capitol news conference, describing him as a normal kid who got caught in a "bad" situation. They were joined by more than a dozen Austin clergy, legal experts, child advocates and other death-penalty opponents who called on the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Rick Perry to commute Mr. Beazley's sentence to life.
"We are asking only for mercy for our son Napoleon," Mr. Beazley told reporters. "He's my child and I love him very much."
Another persona emerged on the night of April 19, 1994, when Napoleon Beazley drove to Tyler, about 80 miles away, with two accomplices.
There, he became a killer.
Smith County Assistant District Attorney Edward Marty said that Mr. Beazley and his accomplices followed Mr. Luttig and his wife, Bobbie, to their Tyler home so they could steal the couple's 1987 Mercedes Benz. It was, he said, a "predatory hunt-down."
According to the Texas attorney general's office, Mr. Beazley fired one round that grazed Mr. Luttig's head, fired at Mrs. Luttig from close range and missed, then returned to Mr. Luttig and "fired point blank" into his head.
| Also Online | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Beazley was tried as an adult and sentenced to death in 1995.
The two accomplices, brothers Cedric and Donald Coleman, received lengthy prison sentences. The petition filed Wednesday by Mr. Beazley's lawyers seeks to convince the Supreme Court that the execution of youthful offenders and the execution of the mentally retarded involve similar issues.
Earlier this year, the justices heard arguments in Atkins vs. Virginia, which raises the question of whether the nation's changing standards of decency should preclude the execution of mentally retarded offenders as cruel and unusual punishment. A decision is expected this summer.
The outcome of the Atkins case may well depend on how the justices do their math, as they gauge the national will to execute the mentally retarded. Death-penalty states that execute the mentally retarded outnumber those that don't. If the 12 states that do not have a death penalty are factored in, a majority of states do not execute the mentally retarded.
Similarly, Beazley attorney Walter Long said that the execution of murderers who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offenses is permitted in the majority of states that have a death penalty, but in fewer than half of all states.
The court provided states with some guidance on the issue of youthful offenders in the 1980s, ruling in an Oklahoma case that those who were 15 or younger at the time of the crime could not be executed. A decision in a Kentucky case permitted states to execute offenders who were 16 or 17.
Today, 38 states permit the death penalty, with 16 of those setting age 18 at the time of the crime as the minimum age for execution.
Five states, including Texas, set 17 as the minimum age. Seventeen states set 16 as the minimum age.
In the Kentucky case, Justice Antonin Scalia opposed including non-death-penalty states when determining a national consensus against executing 16- and 17-year-olds. He likened it to "discerning a national consensus that wagering on cockfights is inhumane by counting within that consensus those states that bar all wagering."
Mr. Beazley's attorneys said that an important swing vote may come from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who made a clear break with Justice Scalia's reasoning.
Said University of Texas law professor Jordan Steiker: "If you're trying to gauge emerging national sentiment, then it only makes sense to include the entire nation and not to exclude 12 states [without a death penalty] from being part of the barometer of public opinion."
Legal scholars point out that a national consensus is a moving target.
"What is considered 'cruel and unusual' in 2002 might not have been considered cruel and unusual in the 1800s," said Texas Tech University professor Charles Bubany.
Prosecutor Marty, who has opposed Mr. Beazley's appeals, said he wished that the age limitations established by the Kentucky decision didn't exist.
"I don't see a difference in what a birthday makes to the ability of a person to be responsible for his acts," Mr. Marty said. "I think we've shown that Beazley was [responsible] at 17. Why would an 18th birthday make a difference?"
In an interview with TXCN this week, Mr. Beazley said the argument about his age is made by his lawyers on his behalf, "but just not one I make for myself." He asked that people "Look at who I am, versus my age at the time of the offense."
"To sit here and say, 'You don't deserve to die because you were 17,' what does that tell our kids? Hey, it's cool to commit murder if you are 17. ..." Mr. Beazley said. "I was 15, if I was 20, if I was 25, it doesn't matter. It never should have happened."
Whether the Supreme Court will consider Mr. Beazley's case is debatable, in part because of legal complications stemming from the victim's family ties to the nation's highest court.
Mr. Luttig's son, J. Michael Luttig, is a federal appeals court judge who once clerked for Justice Scalia. Before Mr. Beazley's original execution date, last August, his attorneys asked the Supreme Court for a stay of execution. Justice Scalia recused himself, as did Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas. The remaining justices split 3-3, which meant that no reprieve was forthcoming.
He later got a reprieve, lifted earlier this year, from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. His most recent execution date was set by state District Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent, who presided over his trial but also took the highly unusual step of writing to Gov. Rick Perry last August asking that his sentence be commuted to life because of his age.
University of Texas law professor Robert Dawson said that the Supreme Court historically has been reluctant to take cases when the full court cannot participate.
If Mr. Beazley's execution is to be blocked or delayed, that decision will probably have to come "from someplace other than the Supreme Court," Mr. Steiker said.
In numerous cases, he said, inmates who were executed had raised legal issues that the Supreme Court later deemed worthy of its attention.
"...With thousands of petitions going by, there's inevitably going to be some arbitrariness in which cases get picked out of the stream and which go by," he said.
Staff Writer George Kuempel contributed to this story.
E-mail etimms@dallasnews.com
The European Union, Amnesty International, the American Bar Association and several other groups oppose his execution. Organizations in Texas have clamored for a commutation, depicting Mr. Beazley as an accomplished young man who made one dreadful mistake. Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu and Mexico Ambassador Juan José Bremer Martino, among others, have written letters recently on his behalf.Gee, why does that not surprise me these bleeding hearts want to let a brutal murderer off?
Opponents say offenders who committed their crimes while under the age of 18 should not be held to the same standard as adults.
Smith County Assistant District Attorney Edward Marty said that Mr. Beazley and his accomplices followed Mr. Luttig and his wife, Bobbie, to their Tyler home so they could steal the couple's 1987 Mercedes Benz. It was, he said, a "predatory hunt-down."
According to the Texas attorney general's office, Mr. Beazley fired one round that grazed Mr. Luttig's head, fired at Mrs. Luttig from close range and missed, then returned to Mr. Luttig and "fired point blank" into his head.
Even Beazley has this to offer:
In an interview with TXCN this week, Mr. Beazley said the argument about his age is made by his lawyers on his behalf, "but just not one I make for myself." He asked that people "Look at who I am, versus my age at the time of the offense."
"To sit here and say, 'You don't deserve to die because you were 17,' what does that tell our kids? Hey, it's cool to commit murder if you are 17. ..." Mr. Beazley said. "I was 15, if I was 20, if I was 25, it doesn't matter. It never should have happened."
Obviously, at age 17 he KNEW what the heck he was doing and that it was wrong.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Scheduled Executions
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm
Yes - from this life to the next. Immediately.
< /sarcasm>
THIS is the point that he’s old enough to receive the death penalty.
Liberals are simply amazing. They have no problem with murdering an innocent baby, but when it comes to a killer meeting his maker, they get all teary eyed.
The only thing consistent with libs is their unending ability to side with evil…
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
That's what he was. But now he is simply a cold blooded killer who deserves to be executed for his crime.
The Beazley Boy
By Ann Coulter
NRO Contributing
A ready smile and a ready gun.
It now turns out the same people who are hysterical about the possibility of executing the innocent are also hysterical about the idea of executing the guilty. Unless you are zealously opposed to capital punishment in all cases (except a baby sleeping peacefully in its mother's womb), death-row inmate Napoleon Beazley deserves the death penalty. Beazley, 25, is the senior-class president with a "ready smile" who put a gun to the head of a 63-year-old man and pulled the trigger. I'm only guessing about the "ready smile" part. Vicious, lumpen predators who would slaughter an old man for a three-block joy ride are always described in the press as having "ready smiles."
Beazley lost his proud boast of having no criminal record when he killed a man at 17 years old. Along with his two hoodlum friends, Beazley confronted John Luttig and his wife, Bobbie, in their own driveway in 1994. Beazley wanted their Mercedes-Benz, so he shot them.
He then walked into a puddle of Mr. Luttig's blood and shot him a second time directly in the head. He rifled through the dead man's pants pocket for the car keys and took the Mercedes. Mrs. Luttig survived by playing dead.
This wasn't a crime out of Columbo. Beazley crashed the Mercedes a few blocks away and left it behind, awash with his prints. Also not good from the "perfect crime" standpoint, Beazley had previously informed his classmates that he soon expected to be driving a Mercedes.
The evidence was overwhelming and, consequently, 12 jurors sentenced Beazley to death. No one, including Beazley, denies that he murdered Mr. Luttig, shot at Mrs. Luttig, and stole the car.
The jury's correct conclusion that he committed a felony murder he admits to, Beazley says, was sadly predictable: "The cards were stacked against me already." Evidently the real reason for the jury's verdict was not the heinous murder, but rank prejudice. As Beazley explained: "[The victim] was a prominent businessman. I was at his home, in his area. People were already pissed off. I wasn't too shocked."
It was a touching show of remorse.
The fact that no one claims Beazley is innocent is the only truly shocking development. Preposterous claims of innocence are de rigueur in death penalty cases.
If Beazley had lyingly claimed to be innocent, no further information about the crime would ever have been revealed by the American press corps. Newspaper headlines would read "Napoleon Beazley: Killer or Victim?" Polls would be commissioned asking: "Should the innocent be executed?"
The most likely reason Beazley's lawyers opted against a manifestly false claim of innocence is that the victim's son is a prominent federal judge. He could probably publicize the true facts of the case if necessary.
In all other respects, Beazley's post-conviction claims are indistinguishable from those of all the "innocent" guys on death row. The modus operandi of anti-death-penalty fanatics never changes.
Inevitably, the defense counsel steps forward to admit he did a lousy job in order to create an "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim. The lawyer's incompetence is always framed in a manner to avoid his having to forfeit his law license. Beazley's lawyer says it was a lack of money that prevented him from mounting an effective defense.
Also like clockwork, some soppy-headed lady lawyer involved in the case, generally the prosecutor, will issue a surprise plea for the killer's life. In Beazley's case, it was the presiding trial judge, Cynthia Kent.
Then there are the rote claims of racism. Here, the defense alleges that in a post-trial interview, one of the jurors used the N-word in front of Beazley's lawyer. This, frankly, is pretty pathetic. Usually the defense can pester at least one juror into attesting to the jury's invidious prejudice. This time we have it on the word of a criminal defense attorney. As a rule of thumb, criminal defense lawyers would gleefully sign affidavits swearing the Earth is flat if it would prevent just one vicious killer from being executed.
Finally, Amnesty International denounces the death sentence for some unique barbarity never before seen in a death-penalty case, making it the single most monstrous punishment ever imposed in the history of mankind. This time, Amnesty complains that Beazley is being punished for an act he committed as a "child." Beazley, it seems, was a few months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Mr. Luttig in cold blood.
It's good to get all this out in the Beazley case. It can now be said that even when the defense counsel is ineffective, the trial judge opposes the capital sentence, the jurors are racist, and Amnesty International is hysterical — American juries still manage to come to the correct decision! Beazley admits he committed a barbaric murder. That's precisely what the jury found.
In fact, I think that he earned lethal injection over drawing and quartering for that one statement.
Put all of their heads together and you could still crochet an Afghan with 'em.
These boobs are just Texas bashing.
Beazley appears to have done what he did with full cognizance of its moral import. He deliberately committed murder in support of another felony, grand theft. No one has argued that he lacked the rational capacity to comprehend the moral weight of his deeds.
This might be the clearest case of justifiable capital punishment I've seen in my lifetime. If the protection of innocent citizens is any part of the mission of the criminal justice system, Napoleon Beazley should die.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
The scheduled date is......
May 28, 2002
This guy could not even go see an R rated movie, he could not sign a contract, he could not buy a beer or a cigarette, he could not vote nor hold office, he could not own a gun or get a real job, he could not rent a car or a motel room, in many localities and states he could not even be out on the street after 10pm under the curfew laws, etc.
How many people here really think 17 is an adult? do you all really think that 13 - 17 year olds should be allowed all of the items listed above? If a 17 year old can be executed, then why cant he have a cigarette as a last wish?
How many people here would have no objections to being tried by a jury of 17 year olds if you were ever charged with a crime?
Hypocracy is the worst evil of all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Video: