The following is a verbatim transcript, based on a recording of what was said at the press conference. The following sets of links will take you to the comments of a specific person. Simply click on the link to go to that section of the transcript. Abe Bonowitz FADP Tom Horkin Florida Catholic Conference Larry Helm Spalding American Civil Liberties Union of Florida Juan Melendez 24th person released from Florida's death row Back to Abe Closing Comments All Parties Questions/Answers

Abe Bonowitz:	Good morning, and thank you all for coming. My name is Abe Bonowitz; I’m the director of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Today, we have several things to talk about in regard to the death penalty. With me today are Juan Melendez, Larry Spalding of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Tom Horkin of the Florida Catholic Conference, and also Sarah Owocki, who is associating in our office. I want to start by mentioning this packet that I’m giving each of you. In this packet are two sets of information. The first is a letter that we delivered to each of the senators and representatives, as well as the copy of an opinion piece that was submitted to the newspapers around the state. Some are planning to run this, although I am not sure when they’re planning to do so. The op-ed spells out our concern with the budget, and why the death penalty is a waste of resources. And then there’s a couple other resources in there. The other thing is, when we’re finished here, we have another letter that we’ll be delivering to the legislators today, as well as a copy of this report, "Mandatory Justice: 18 Reforms to the Death Penalty." It’s probably unrealistic to expect the Legislature to abolish the death penalty, although it would certainly be fiscally prudent; but, if we’re going to have the death penalty, we ought to make sure that it’s fair and accurate. And the reforms suggested in this report will go a long way towards giving Floridians more confidence in the system that we have. There is a growing unease with the way Florida’s death penalty system is failing. I’ll be happy to talk more about that. But today, Governor Jeb Bush is going to execute his fifth volunteer. The fifth time, five out of 13, if this execution goes forward, a prisoner will be allowed to waive their appeals. Effectively, this will be the tail wagging the dog. The only time the state is willing to bend over backwards for a prisoner is when that prisoner says, “Go ahead and kill me.” I think we have to look at the issues that lead a person to want to commit suicide, to give up their appeals. Now, my grandmother died of a terrible stomach cancer, and, she could not get an assisted suicide. The only way to get an assisted suicide in this state is if you are a murderer condemned to death, and I find that puzzling. The other Florida death row prisoners who have had their suicides assisted are Dan Howser, Edward Castro, Rigaberto Sanchez Molasco, and Eileen Wuornos. Finally, before I introduce our next speaker, I want to say that, while we oppose the death penalty, and while we seek viable alternatives to the death penalty, we also remember the victims. And today, we remember Jennifer, Glendon, Bradley, Peggy, and Gerald, who were insanely murdered by Newton Slawson, who’s going to be killed today by the people of our state. We remember the victims, but not with more killing. And with that, I’d like to introduce Tom Horkin, who’s here to represent the Florida Catholic Conference.
Tom Horkin:	[To Index] I used to be the executive director; now I am just a consultant to the Conference. When I speak on the death penalty, I usually speak on moral tones or moral themes, quoting Pope John Paul II or the Archbishop. Today, I want to join with this press conference in talking about the absurd law we have on the books and the absurd way it’s done, and how it’s creating enormous expenses in implementing it. But more importantly, although I don’t have time to go into everything, I’ll just point out to you, that in the last 20 years, the courts have released 25 people from death row, because they were proven innocent, because there was no evidence to convict. Juan Melendez is one of them, and he spent almost 18 years on death row before being released. They were all released by the courts, and not one by state clemency proceedings, which the law provides for. U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist wrote an opinion some years ago in the Herrerra case, saying that the courts should not be dealing with innocence: that is the responsibility of the governor, and chief executive of each state. In Florida, it would require the Governor and the Cabinet, but the Governor has to institute it, and the Governor has to join in the decision to grant clemency. Not Once, since 1980, has that happened, and this is absurd. We have now a law that was passed in the confusion when Governor Askew called the Legislature to Special Session, in December of 1972, to adopt a law on reinstating the death penalty. They took a 200 page opinion report of the United States Supreme Court, in which no two judges agreed with each other ­ they all wrote separate opinions ­ and they sat down in this Special Session of the Legislature to interpret what this would mean; like you have right now, it was a short Special Session. And they each passed different bills, and they sat down in a conference committee and compromised with the Governor’s office and the Lieutenant Governor, and got a (unintelligible) the death penalty law that’s been in court time after time. Since that time, the Legislature, starting around 1980, commenced to amending the law, about every year, practically, which created a new constitutional problem in the courts, slowed things down. I’ll just conclude with one thought. About 7 or 8 years ago, I attended a meeting of the Florida Senate Criminal Justice Committee; I think Mr. Spalding was there. And at the end of that meeting ­ they hadn’t taken up the death penalty issue ­ the parents of one of the victims of Danny Rolling were introduced. And they sat up there, and almost tearfully, said, “Danny Rolling was sentenced to death 5 years ago; why hasn’t he been executed?” And while everyone’s heart was going out to those people, I sat there, and thinking to myself, everybody in this room practically knows why ­ because there 360 people ahead of him, and he’s got to file in behind them. Well, that was 7 or 8 years ago, and 13 years later, he still hasn’t been executed. We only execute people who volunteer, or people who fall through the cracks, because of this crazy law that we’ve got on the books. And to amend it ­ I don’t know how many times ­ it just calls out for the Governor and the Legislature to sit down and abolish what they got. But if they insist on it, they have to have some kind of sensible law, and you can only pray that they can come up with a sensible law without getting involved in all this politics, and going back to the people and say we're tough on crime and we (unintelligible).
Abe Bonowitz:	[To Index] Thank you Mr. Horkin. I want to introduce to you now Larry Spalding, who is the Legislative Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
Larry Spalding:	[To Index] I’ll be very brief. The ACLU, as you know, is opposed to the death penalty, and calls for a moratorium in this state; but, part of my job is to work with the Florida Legislature on a wide range of issues, and a lot of people with whom I work in criminal issues are concerned about human services. And this year, we’re talking about aid to disabled people, we're talking about cutting aid to children, cutting aid to seniors. But we still have time to come up with millions and million of dollars to execute people. And you have to say, in this time of budgetary constraint, where are our priorities? And is it not appropriate to follow suite of hardly liberal places of the North Carolina Senate, who said, “Maybe we need to step back, and look at this procedure, and save a little money at the same time?” And again tonight, as Mr. Horkin indicated, we have a very bizarre situation in our state. We have taken a public policy position on physician assisted suicide. And we take that position for two reasons. One, the Legislature said that that was a moral issue. And they also questioned whether or not an individual could rationally and intelligently make that decision; yet we don’t really ask that same question when it comes to someone on death row. If physician-assisted suicide is wrong in one context, then it is wrong in all contexts. And we would hope that the Legislature, at some point in time, would look at this issue a little more realistically than it has. Thank you.
Juan Melendez:	[To Index] Good morning. I’m not going to talk about my case, because this ­ well, you know what it’s about, the death penalty in the state of Florida. What I want to talk about is why people who decide to drop their appeals. You have to understand, the citizens of Florida have to understand, the way the facilities are set up. They are set up to break the spirit, and it really happens, because in the row facilities changed for the worse when Jeb Bush became Governor. We used to have hobby crafts; we used to crochet a lot. We used to be able to draw pictures and paint with brushes and stuff, and send them to the families, whatever. We used to lift weights, take a lot of tension out, or bring a lot of steam out. And then when you would get back to your cells, you would try to go to sleep. We used to be able to take our hands out through the bars and take a mirror and look at the neighbor, look at the condemned man next door to you. We used to learn how to read and write ­ that’s how I learned how to read and write in there. And you can’t do that any more. The medical conditions, since Bush came, got worse. A lot of people in there need doctors who know how to deal with mental problems. It’s a lot of loneliness; there’s nothing to do. In other words, it’s set up to break your spirit. It’s set up to break the will of living. And that’s why you see all these people who want to drop their appeals and getting the state assist them to commit suicide. They know that they can do it themselves; they know they can get the help for that from Jeb Bush, who set this up, to break the spirit, to lose the will of living. I would like to point out the problems that CCR is having. They now want to pull the funding, instead of putting more money in the budget so that CCR can continue to do their work. And why is that? It’s because CCR is responsible for 3 people, who were innocent, being freed. CCR was also responsible for Frank Smith's case being overturned. In other words, CCR is doing good work. CCR is letting the public know how bad the system is, how the system is broken. That’s why Jeb Bush wants to stop it, simple and plain, CCR is doing too good work. And with that, I’ll wrap this up, for all of you.
Abe Bonowitz:	[To Index] Thank you Mr. Melendez. Before we go to questions, I would just like to say one more thing. And I point to you, that in the packet, you can find the opinion piece that was submitted; any of this can be quoted, as far as I am concerned. But, several years ago, during a special session of the budget that happened after September 11, several of us came up to try to get the Legislatures attention for this issue on the budget, on this waste of money that we have going on here with the death penalty. And then House Speaker Tom Feeney said this, and I quote: “It’s the most attractive argument for repealing the death penalty that I’ve heard, though I disagree with the way it was put forth. I wish that he would have put it into a budget amendment.” And with that, I want to invite forward-thinking legislators to consider an amendment to abolish the death penalty in Florida. Abolishing the death penalty in Florida today would save a minimum of $51 million annually. It’s less than 1/100 of a percent of the budget they’re considering; it’s a miniscule amount of our budget, and it could be put towards education and crime prevention, things that will prevent people from becoming violent criminals. The last thing I want to say has to do with the victims, because that’s what they’re going to say tonight, when they execute Mr. Slawson. It's what Governor Bush says every time there is an execution “We’re doing it for the victims. The victims’ families deserve this execution." And I would simply argue, that if that’s true, then why aren’t we killing a lot more? In this state, we sentence to death about 3% of the people who could be sentenced to death. And we execute fewer than 1% of the people who could be executed. If the death penalty is being held as a commodity for victims’ families, then what are we saying to all the victims’ family members where there could be a death penalty but there isn’t? “Your loved one wasn’t valuable enough.” That’s what they’re saying, and the bottom line is, that it’s not really about giving relief to victims’ families. It’s a political tool, and I would put forth that that is the real intention of Governor Bush in defunding CCRC. What he really wants to speed up the process so that there’s more executions and one way to do that is to take away the effective state organization that defends people sentenced to death. Questions?
Reporter:	[To Index] Mr. Bonowitz, Mr. Slawson is hardly a sympathetic character, given the nature of his crime. Does that make it harder to argue on his behalf?
Abe Bonowitz:	[To Index] It’s not about the prisoner. It's not about the crime. Because the death penalty as a public policy is flawed, morally, economically, and socially, again the question is, why aren’t we killing a lot more? Although Newton Slawson’s crime was horrible, and certainly he is among the worst of the worst, but there are many others who committed similar crimes, who are not sentenced to death, who got a lesser sentence. In Florida, the alternative is life without the possibility for parole. So, what’s the difference between Newton Slawson and the other murderers who have committed horrible crimes like his where they didn’t get the death penalty? It has more to do with race, politics, geography, and money. Now, Newton Slawson is a white man, and I’m pretty sure the victims were also white. The question is, was this murder in a county that could afford a death penalty trial? The answer is yes. If the murder had been in a more rural county, chances are they couldn’t have even afford the death penalty. And that alone should cause people to question whether the system is fair and equally applied.
Reporter:	[To Index] How many people were executed in the state of Florida last year?
Abe Bonowitz:	[To Index] Two ­ no, I’m sorry, three. Rigaberto Sanchez Velasquez, Eileen Wuernos, and Linroy Botteson, all of whom by the way, were mentally ill. (Pause) Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. END [To Top]