[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 162 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12015-H12019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I will address this house tonight on a very 
special issue. It is good to hear that the speakers prior to me used as 
the basis of their dialogue the Constitution.
  Far too often it seems to me that in this House we talk and 
pontificate about all kinds of things, but sometimes we forget the 
basis for all legislation, the basis for what we do, the basis for the 
oath that we took as Members of Congress, was to support the 
Constitution of the United States.

                              {time}  1830

  Like many Members of Congress, I carry a pocket Constitution with me 
to refer to from time to time. I want to read just one portion of the 
U.S. Constitution. It is the eighth amendment to the Constitution. We 
call the first 10 amendments to our Constitution the Bill of Rights.
  It says in the eighth amendment that excessive bail should not be 
required, nor excessive fines imposed. It also says nor cruel and 
unusual punishments inflicted. You notice the phrase is ``cruel and 
unusual punishment.'' Far too often some quote this phrase in the 
Constitution as cruel or unusual. That is not the law and it has never 
been the law. The law is punishment should not be cruel and unusual.
  A little history is in order. Our forefathers that wrote this 
Constitution did not come up with that phrase. It

[[Page H12016]]

goes all of the way back to the English Bill of Rights from 1689. Most 
of the colonists had English heritage, and when they formed their 
federations and the States and colonies, they enacted certain laws. In 
those laws and later their State constitutions, they included the 
phrase that punishment should not be cruel and unusual.
  Then when our forefathers wrote this Constitution and made it the 
law, this eighth amendment was added to make sure that punishment was 
not cruel and unusual. So that is a little basis for where we came up 
with this phrase. There have been many debates over the years as to 
what does that mean, cruel and unusual punishment. Not many Supreme 
Court cases are involved in what the definition is. But there is one. 
In 1878, the Supreme Court of the United States in a case called 
Wilkerson v. Utah tried to define what the phrase ``cruel and unusual'' 
meant. Here is what they said: It is safe to affirm that punishments of 
torture, such as drawing and quartering, emboweling alive, such as took 
place in the movie Braveheart with William Wallace, beheading, public 
dissecting, and burning alive, and all others in the same line of 
unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by the eighth amendment to the 
Constitution. I doubt there are many Americans who would disagree with 
that interpretation of what ``cruel and unusual'' means.
  But we have a new issue before us today, and this issue is coming 
before the United States Supreme Court which meets right down the 
street from us. Those nine members of the Supreme Court have decided to 
take two cases from Kentucky that deal with the issue of cruel and 
unusual punishment.
  Two men in Kentucky received the death penalty for crimes against the 
citizens of Kentucky. And they argue now, years later, that the means 
by which they are executed is cruel and unusual. That means, Mr. 
Speaker, is by lethal injection. Kentucky's lethal injection procedures 
are the same as many States, including my home State of Texas. Just to 
be clear, three chemicals are used for lethal injection. The first is 
sodium thiopentothal which renders a person unconscious, and pavulon 
which paralyzes the muscles, including those which control breathing, 
and then potassium chloride which causes cardiac arrest. Those are the 
three chemicals that most States use and are administered to the person 
who has received the death penalty and is to be executed for their 
crimes.
  The Supreme Court will consider one of these cases, it is called Baze 
v. Rees, the way that lethal injection is actually administered by the 
administrating process, whether it causes severe pain such that it is a 
violation of the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the eighth 
amendment. Baze was scheduled to die on September 25, 2007, for the 
1992, that's right, 15 years ago he murdered a sheriff and deputy 
sheriff who were trying to serve him with a warrant. The Kentucky 
Supreme Court stayed his execution pending the outcome of the Supreme 
Court decision.
  The second case involves the execution of a Thomas Bowling, also from 
Kentucky. In 1990, that is 17 years ago, he killed Tina and Edward 
Early outside their Lexington dry cleaning business. He also shot the 
Early's then 2-year-old son, but the son did not die. He was able to 
survive. Bowling was supposed to be executed 3 years ago, in 2004, but 
his execution was halted in part because of a challenge on how the 
State of Kentucky executes prisoners.
  Both of these offenders, Baze and Bowling, sued the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky in 2004 claiming lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual 
punishment and violates the eighth amendment to the Constitution. The 
State Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled against both of these men, but 
the U.S. Supreme Court now will hear their case. This marks the first 
time that the United States Supreme Court will address the merits of 
lethal injection without also a request for a stay of execution.
  The Supreme Court's precedent is that the death penalty and the 
method of execution must not be ``contrary to evolving standards of 
decency'' and may not inflict ``unnecessary pain.'' Let me say that 
again. The Supreme Court says that the method of execution must not be 
contrary to evolving standards of decency and may not inflict 
unnecessary pain.
  Our Supreme Court really has only ruled on a direct method of 
execution once, and that was in 1878 when it upheld the use of a firing 
squad for execution. But since that time, the Supreme Court in 1972 
stopped all death penalty cases because of a different legal issue. The 
issue was that juries that decided whether a person should get the 
death penalty or not had too much discretion in making that decision. 
So the Supreme Court struck down death cases in the United States until 
State law conformed with the Supreme Court ruling, and then jurors were 
given a more exact way of determining whether the person should live or 
die. I am not going to go into those issues at this time, but basically 
the jury is asked a series of questions, and based upon the way they 
answer the questions, the person would receive the death penalty or a 
life sentence. In 1976, juries once again started hearing death penalty 
cases and making that decision.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, prior to coming to this House, I served in 
Texas first as a prosecutor in the district attorney's office in 
Houston for 8 years, and I also served on the bench trying felony cases 
after that for 22 years. During those 8 years when I served as a 
prosecutor, I tried death penalty cases. And those people that I tried 
when I was a prosecutor have all been executed.
  When I served on the bench, most of those individuals who were tried 
and juries heard those cases, those people who received the death 
penalty have also been executed. But there are still some even now who 
are on death row.
  I want to make it clear that judges do not determine the death 
penalty in this country. We do not give that power to one person. We 
want and make juries determine whether a person should live or die for 
the crimes they have committed. It is a mistaken belief among a lot of 
Americans that judges assess the death penalty. We just sentence the 
person to the death penalty if the jury has ordered the death penalty 
in that particular case.
  So it is 12 people from the community who set the community standard 
on the conduct on the individual who appears in court. I am a great 
believer in that. I believe juries should be the ones and it should be 
a unanimous decision before we take a person's life for the crimes they 
have committed.
  And guilt should never be an issue. What I mean by that, juries must 
be absolutely convinced beyond all doubt that a person committed this 
crime before they assess the death penalty. I was very careful as a 
trial judge over those 22 years on the numerous death penalty cases I 
tried to make sure that the rule of law was enforced in every situation 
because of the fact that the person that is on trial receives the 
ultimate punishment.
  I am actually one who believes in numerous appeals on death penalty 
cases, to have it reviewed by other courts. I just wish courts, 
including our Supreme Court, would not take so long to make those 
decisions, that they should review those questions of guilt and the 
constitutional rights of the offender, make sure that those are 
reviewed quickly and not take years and years. That does not promote 
any form of justice either for the offender or for the victim in the 
case.
  The State of Texas, as many know, has executed more folks than any 
other State. Let me just mention a little history here. Before it was 
even a part of the United States and before it was even a country, 
Texas was a country for 9 years from 1836 to 1845. But even before that 
time, Texas assessed the death penalty and death penalty cases were 
assessed by hanging. That was done until 1923, and then the State of 
Texas moved to the electric chair until the Supreme Court stayed all 
executions. And then lethal injection has been used ever since 1976. 
Texas was the first State to use lethal injection in 1982 as the means 
of punishing a person who received the death penalty.
  There are 38 States now that assess the death penalty or have death 
penalty statutes on their books; 37 of those use lethal injection. 
Nebraska still uses electrocution. So 38 States, most of the States 
make that decision that some cases are so bad that the death penalty 
should be a form of punishment in those cases.

[[Page H12017]]

  Now, I say all of that to address just one case. There are many cases 
that I could mention here. It would fill more than my allotted 60 
minutes, but I want to talk of one case that occurred in my district 
back in Texas in Port Arthur. It involves a person by the name of Elroy 
Chester. He was born in Port Arthur in 1969. His criminal record begins 
in 1987 when he turned 18 years of age. I have before me here, Mr. 
Speaker, the 4-page resume of Elroy Chester. I don't have time to read 
all of the life and times of Elroy Chester, but I would like to put his 
rap sheet, as we call it in the vernacular, into the Record.

                    State of Texas vs. Elroy Chester


                          CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

       6/14/69--Elroy Chester born in Port Arthur, TX.
       2/20/87--Burglary of a habitation, docket #48529.
       2/25/87--Chester arrested for above burglary.
       4/08/87--Chester released from jail via pretrial bond.
       5/87--Chester graduated from Abraham Lincoln H.S. in Port 
     Arthur.
       5/09/87--Burglary of a habitation, docket #48794.
       5/17/87--Chester arrested for above burglary.
       8/03/87--Chester convicted on both cases, 10 years 
     probation on both #48529 & #48794.
       8/07/87--Chester transferred to TDC (shock probation).
       11/04/87--Chester returned to Jefferson County Jail from 
     TDC.
       11/09/87--Chester released per order of the court.
       3/28/88--Chester arrested on MTRP warrants on both 
     probation cases.
       3/29/88--Chester released per order of the court.
       5/11/88--Burglary of a habitation docket #50635.
       5/25/88--Burglary of a habitation, docket #50633.
       6/09/88--Chester arrested for both above burglaries.
       7/28/88--MTRP's filed on both probation cases.
       12/19/88--Chester convicted on #50635, sentenced to 13 
     years TDC, revoked probations.
       4/07/89--Chester transferred to TDC.
       2/13/90--Chester paroled from TDC.
       3/16/90--Chester arrested for evading arrest, theft and 
     possession of criminal instrument.
       3/19/90--Chester released, accusation up.
       4/01/90--Burglary of a habitation, 2 counts aggravated 
     assault reported, case against Chester refused by DA 1/08/91.
       5/31/90--Chester appeared in court on evading case, 
     convicted, 3 days in jail.
       5/31/90--Chester released, time served.
       8/19/91--Chester arrested for UCW (misd).
       8/19/91--Chester released via PR bond.
       10/15/91--Chester arrested for parole warrant.
       11/18/91--Chester transferred from Jefferson County Jail to 
     Bexar County.
       9/01/92--Chester arrested for possession of marijuana 
     (misd).
       9/04/92--Chester released, accusation up.
       9/27/92--Aggravated sexual assault/Burglary.
       10/20/92--Chester arrested on warrant for above marijuana 
     case.
       10/21/92--Chester released via PR bond.
       2/01/92--Chester arrested on parole warrant.
       1/11/94--Chester transferred to TDC.
       3/21/97--Chester paroled from TDC.
       8/03/97--Burglary of a habitation (Lorcin .380 pistol 
     stolen). Victim: Kenneth Risinger.
       8/09/97--Aggravated sexual assault. Victim: A minor.
       8/14/97--Attempted aggravated robbery. Victim: Candice 
     Tucker.
       8/15/97--Aggravated robbery. Victim: Dolly DeLeon.
       8/16/97--Burglary of a habitation, Victim: Nancy Morales.
       8/16/97--Attempted capital murder. Victim: Oscar Morales.
       8/16/97--Attempted capital murder. Victim: Matthew 
     Horvatich.
       9/20/97--John Henry Sepeda murdered.
       10/25/97--Burglary of a habitation. Victim: James Haney.
       11/08/97--Burglary of a habitation. Victim: Marlene King.
       11/08/97--Burglary of a habitation. Victim: Kay Barnes.
       11/15/97--Etta Mae Stallings murdered. (.22 pistol stolen).
       11/15/97--Attempted capital murder/2 counts. Victims: Peggy 
     Johnson and Debra Ferguson.
       11/20/97--Cheryl DeLeon murdered.
       11/21/97--Four suspected gang members arrested and charged 
     in Sepeda's death: Michael Lieby; David Lieby, Joseph Garcia 
     and Bryan Garsee.
       11/25/97--Arthur Jupiter also arrested and charged in the 
     Sepeda murder.
       12/07/97--Attempted capital murder. Victim: Lorenzo 
     Coronado.
       12/21/97--Albert Bolden, Jr. found murdered.
       1/22/98--Grand jury indicts the Lieby's and Jupiter for 
     capital murder (Sepeda), Garsee for burglary of Sepeda home 
     but no-bills Garcia in the murder.
       2/06/98--Willie Ryman, III murdered.
       2/08/98--Chester arrested for violation of city ordinance, 
     other charges added.
       2/09/98--Chester directs investigators to Lorcin .380. 
     Chester gives investigators sworn statement (confession) #1.
       2/10/98--Chester gives investigators sworn statement #2. 
     Chester directs investigators to jewelry.
       2/11/98--Chester gives investigators sworn statements #3, 
     #4, and #5.
       2/12/98--Chester indicted Jefferson County Grand Jury: 2 
     counts capital murder (Ryman and Stallings), 2 counts murder 
     (DeLeon and Bolden).
       2/26/98--Chester indicted for capital murder of Sepeda.
       2/26/98--Attorneys Douglas Barlow and Layne Walker 
     appointed to defend Chester.
       2/26/98--Capital murder charges against David Lieby, 
     Michael Lieby and Arthur Jupiter are dismissed by DA 
     (regarding the Sepeda murder).
       8/03/98--Jury selection begins in capital murder trial of 
     Chester (Ryman).
       8/13/98--Jury selection completed, Chester enters a guilty 
     plea.
       8/17/98--Punishment phase of the trial begins.
       8/24/98--Following closing arguments the jury begins 
     deliberations.
       8/24/98--After jurors deliberated for 12 minutes, Chester 
     was sentenced to death.

  Mr. Speaker, Chester's crime spree started when he was young with 
burglaries, and it ends up with capital murder in 2004. I want to tell 
you something about this case as to just tell you the type of people 
that live among the rest of us and what they do and how eventually they 
are caught.
  In September of 1997, John Henry Sepeda, and the people I mention 
tonight are or were real people. He was an elderly man in southeast 
Texas and he was bedridden and he was shot to death in his home in his 
bed. Four local gang members were first arrested and later released. 
And Chester, when he was finally released, confessed to this murder.
  Three months later in November of 1997, Etta Stallings, 86 years of 
age, was gunned down in her home where she happened to be caring for 
her invalid husband. A 22-caliber revolver was stolen from her home, 
and nearby during the same evening, two women were shot with a 22-
caliber handgun as they lay in their bed. Shots came through an open 
window. Both women suffered multiple gunshot wounds, but miraculously 
they lived. The dog that was shot did not live.
  Chester later when he was arrested confessed to all of these crimes.
  Five days later Cheryl Deleon, an employee at a cafeteria in Port 
Arthur, Texas, was found shot to death outside her front door. Robbery 
was the apparent motive, and there weren't any witnesses.
  The next month, in December 1997, Lorenzo Coronado was shot in the 
head as he lay in his bed after someone broke in. He miraculously also 
survived even though he was shot in the head.
  Two weeks later, Albert Bolden, another real person, was found dead 
in his residence in Port Arthur. He had been shot in the head, but he 
had been dead for some time before his body was found.

                              {time}  1845

  Then finally, just a few months later in February of 1998, Port 
Arthur's reign of terror ended with the murder of Willie Ryman, III.
  Mr. Speaker, Willie Ryman was a firefighter at Port Arthur Fire 
Department. He was twice named Firefighter of the Year, and in February 
of 1998 he decided he would stop by his sister's home to check on his 
two teenage nieces who were there alone. His sister was also a 
firefighter, and he wanted to make sure that they were okay because his 
sister was working as well.
  Ryman was concerned about the nieces' welfare. It's interesting he 
was very concerned because he had heard of this crime spree that was 
going on in Port Arthur. Unbeknownst to him, it was all Chester's 
doing, this crime spree.
  Be that as it may, he comes into the house, and he found that it was 
dark. He turned on the light, and he confronted a masked intruder who 
pointed a .380 revolver pistol at him and shot him in the chest. He 
fell right there in this room, and he died in his own blood.
  Ryman never knew that the intruder had already been in the house and 
sexually assaulted both of the teenage girls. Not only had they been 
sexually assaulted, they'd been tied up and duct-taped, as well as one 
of their friends.
  Chester left the house and saw Ryman's fiancee in his truck parked in 
the driveway. In other words, the

[[Page H12018]]

fiancee had come to the house looking for Ryman, wanting to know why he 
hadn't returned. Chester tried to gain entry into this truck, but she 
locked the doors. Chester fired several shots into the vehicle but 
missed Ryman's fiancee, and then he takes off in the darkness of the 
night running.
  He was later arrested for a minor city ordinance violation in Port 
Arthur, and while he was in custody, he was charged with several 
offenses, including burglary of the home where Ryman was killed.
  The next day, Chester agreed to speak with the investigators, and 
they obtained a search warrant ordering a sample of Chester's blood and 
hair to be taken for comparison with evidence from the sexual assault 
victims.
  He was taken to the district attorney's office to execute the warrant 
and obtain the samples, but before the blood samples could be taken and 
the hair samples could be taken, he blurted out that he killed ``the 
fireman.''
  During the course of the search, the police found the jewelry that 
belonged to Kim DeLeon, that was Willie Ryman's sister and mother of 
the two girls that Chester sexually assaulted. This was the same 
property that had been taken at the time of the murder and the sexual 
assault.
  Chester was in recent, unexplained possession of stolen property, 
which had been missing for only 30 hours. Police informed Chester that 
they'd found and recovered the stolen jewelry, found the masks that 
were used in the rapes in his residence, and so Chester volunteered to 
show the police where his gun was.
  He had hidden the pistol over at his father's house, and here's what 
happened when they go to Chester's father's house. As Elroy Chester 
informed the police where he hid the gun, he also tried to reach for a 
gun he had hidden in that residence and pull it on the police, but the 
police forcefully and adequately and successfully took that gun away 
from him as well.
  He later confessed to stealing Etta Stallings' jewelry. That's the 
88-year-old woman that I mentioned some minutes ago that took care of 
her invalid husband and murdering her. He confessed to killing her. He 
confessed to killing John Sepeda, and he later confessed to the murders 
of DeLeon and Albert Bolden. Then he also confessed to other attempted 
capital murders of three other victims.
  Now, his case has already worked its way to the Supreme Court once on 
a different issue, but yet, as he was tried in 1998, he has still not 
received his appropriate sentence.
  And what was his sentence from the jury in 1998 after they heard 
about the death, murder, and pillaging that he committed in Port 
Arthur, the five murders, the numerous burglaries, the numerous sexual 
assaults, the attempted murders? The jury, Mr. Speaker, in 12 minutes, 
12 minutes, assessed the death penalty for Elroy Chester.
  Now, as I mentioned, both as a prosecutor and as a judge, I have 
heard several, many death penalty cases, but I've never heard a case 
where a jury only took 12 minutes to all agree on what should happen to 
this person who did these dastardly acts against other people in his 
community. It's a remarkable time frame. DWI cases take longer than 12 
minutes for a jury normally to reach a verdict. That's how overwhelming 
his guilt was in this case, Mr. Speaker. So guilt is not an issue in 
this case. The 12-minute verdict is certainly remarkable, but guilt is 
not an issue.
  But he also faces execution by lethal injection. So one issue is now 
before the Supreme Court, throughout the fruited plain in all States, 
whether or not lethal injection violates the eighth amendment 
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. That is one of the 
issues in his case, and he is avoiding his day with his Maker because 
of this issue.
  But I think it goes further than that, Mr. Speaker. I don't think 
it's just an issue that the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or 
not lethal injection violates the eighth amendment provision, but 
whether the death penalty itself is a violation of the eighth amendment 
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
  Based upon prior rulings of the Supreme Court, it seems to me that 
there are at least three members of the Supreme Court that are always 
opposed to the death penalty as a form of punishment. Sometimes there's 
a fourth member opposed to the death penalty, and they find ways to 
prevent the death penalty. No matter what the circumstances are, even 
though State law, written by State legislators and the will of the 
people and the will of a jury of the community says otherwise, some of 
those members of the Supreme Court continue to look for ways to avoid 
assessing or allowing the death penalty, even though we had in this 
country the death penalty that goes all the way back to colonial days.
  Going to the first issue, whether or not lethal injection is a 
violation of the eighth amendment, cruel and unusual punishment 
provision, my question is, if we don't use lethal injection, what do we 
use? All of these other forms of execution are basically no longer 
used, whether it's hanging, the firing squad, the gas chamber. So I ask 
the question, what would those who oppose lethal injection have the 
system, society, justice, the juries, the courts use as an alternative 
to lethal injection? I don't know the answer to that question.
  Is the Supreme Court going to rule that the pain inflicted by the 
administration of lethal injection in itself is cruel or unusual? It 
will be interesting to see if they draw that fine line to say that 
since it is painful or could be painful, that violates the prohibition.
  The real issue, though, is whether or not the death penalty will 
remain on the statutes of 38 States. Most countries don't have the 
death penalty. Our European friends don't use the death penalty. They 
criticize us a lot for the death penalty. Even Third World countries 
like Mexico, where crime is rampant, don't use the death penalty, and 
they do everything they can to prevent execution in this country of 
their nationals.
  Some say that the death penalty is immoral, but let me ask you, what 
is moral about taking people like Elroy Chester and taking care of them 
for the rest of their natural life? What is moral about that? I don't 
think that that is very moral. Incarcerating a person for the rest of 
their lives where they have no responsibility, that the society takes 
care of them for the rest of their life and gives them, really, a place 
to live out forever, I do not think that that is a moral thing, in my 
opinion.
  But be that as it may, we use the term ``justice'' quite frequently 
in courts of law. We use it in this Chamber, ``justice.'' What is 
justice? Well, justice to me seems to be the right decision for the 
right reason, but sometimes we compare justice to the scales of 
justice, where Lady Justice is holding the scales, and justice occurs 
when the scales are balanced, that they are not overweighted for one 
side or the other.
  And what do we put on those scales? Well, maybe we put the concerns 
and the rights of the offender. But also, on the other side, what do we 
put? Maybe the rights of the community, of the public and of victims.
  But be that as it may, justice only occurs when the scales of justice 
are balanced, and when either side is out of sync, we have injustice in 
our courts of law.
  The defendants that are on death row, who hope that the death penalty 
may be thrown out, hope that the lethal injection system is thrown out 
have their concerns, but those people who have been murdered also have 
their day and rights in court.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, the silent graves of the murdered cry out for 
justice in these types of cases for several reasons; not just the fact 
that the delays and the delays for execution of these sentences take so 
long, but by the method or, rather, by the total result of whether or 
not a person should receive the death penalty or not. If justice is 
delayed, it's denied.
  So I would hope that the Supreme Court would review this law based 
upon American law, and I say that because our Supreme Court, Mr. 
Speaker, from time to time goes and uses international law and 
international court decisions to make determinations and interpret our 
United States Constitution. They've done that in the phrase ``cruel and 
unusual punishment'' in the past. They did that when they have said 
that 17-year-olds can't be executed. They made that decision even 
though it was the State law in several

[[Page H12019]]

States, including the State of Texas. So my question is, why do we go 
to Europe to make our decisions about our Constitution? After all, 
didn't we leave Europe and England because we didn't like the way they 
were doing things?
  Some say that the death penalty doesn't deter, and we've heard all 
those arguments. Of course, it does deter one person from ever 
committing those crimes again. But my own concern is that justice 
demands that in some cases, like Elroy Chester, that the ultimate price 
for the crimes that they have committed should be given, and that is a 
person's forfeiture of their right to live.
  Some people actually earn the death penalty on their own by their 
conduct, and I am one of those that believes that that is just in 
appropriate cases. An injustice would occur if he were allowed to have 
some other sentence other than what the jury verdict so imposed in his 
particular case.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this whole issue of cruel and unusual punishment, 
the eighth amendment, the history of the eighth amendment, what the 
Supreme Court now interprets that to mean, the method of execution, 
execution in any form, all of those issues now once again will be 
before the nine black-robed Justices down the street, and it would seem 
to me that they should follow the Constitution to the letter, the 
historical content of the eighth amendment and where it came from and 
the history of it and uphold the right of States and, in some cases, 
appropriate cases, to let juries make a determination that a person 
should pay the ultimate price for the crimes they have committed 
against society.
  They should make it very clear what method should be used in all 
cases for the execution of those like Elroy Chester who have earned the 
right to be executed for the crimes that they have committed, because 
you see, Mr. Speaker, justice is the one thing that we should always 
find in every case. Although the death penalty is a very serious 
punishment for crime, in cases of overwhelming guilt and overwhelming 
evidence and overwhelming cruelty and criminal conduct and a slew of 
murders, a person has earned the punishment that juries impose.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________