[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E267-E268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   HONORING SENATOR RAYMOND LESNIAK FOR WINNING THE MEMORIAL DE CAEN 
                 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMPETITION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 12, 2009

  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate New Jersey State 
Senator Raymond Lesniak on winning the Memorial de Caen International 
Human Rights Competition. Senator Lesniak's address, entitled ``The 
Road to Justice and Peace'' was chosen by an international panel of 
judges over a number of entries from all over the world. In his speech, 
Senator Lesniak makes the case that the death penalty has failed, gives 
examples of miscarriages of justice and argues that the death penalty 
``serves no penal purpose and commits society to the belief that 
revenge is preferable to redemption.''
  When New Jersey became the first state to abolish the death penalty 
since the Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976, Senator Lesniak was the 
prime sponsor and mover of the bill. His passion for justice, combined 
with his patient, consistent leadership on the issue, had achieved 
victory for a cause he felt so strongly about.
  It was not always the case. Ray Lesniak admits in the Introduction of 
his book The Road to Abolition: How New Jersey Abolished the Death 
Penalty, that he was not always a death penalty opponent. Early in his 
legislative career, the Senator voted to reinstate the death penalty in 
New Jersey. He tells of how he feared the unpopularity of a vote to 
abolish and was swayed by the argument that he might be perceived as 
``soft on crime''. He gave no thought to the morality of the issue or 
to the possibility of executing an innocent person. He now says that 
``The 20 plus intervening years taught me that public service should 
not be about seeking approval, glory or fame. Trinkets. They're nothing 
more than trinkets.''
  When Governor Corzine signed the bill abolishing the death penalty in 
New Jersey, the Sant'Egidio Community, which is at the forefront of the 
international anti-death penalty movement, arranged for the lighting of 
the Colosseum in Rome. The edifice that once was the scene of deadly 
gladiator combat and executions was bathed for 24 hours in golden light 
celebrating New Jersey's decision to halt executions. A fitting tribute 
to the work of Senator Raymond Lesniak.
  Ray Lesniak is one of the longest serving and most skilled members of 
the New Jersey Legislature. First elected to the General Assembly in 
1977, he has served in the New Jersey Senate since 1983. His 
legislative career is filled with initiatives that have become law and 
ideas that have moved our society ahead. His work has been recognized 
by numerous organizations. In 2002, Senator Lesniak was named 
``Humanitarian of the Year'' by Community Access Unlimited for his 
legislative efforts on behalf of people with disabilities and for 
providing support to working families and the homeless. In 2003 he was 
awarded ``Legislator of the Year'' by the Medical Society of New Jersey 
for working to make health care more affordable and accessible, 
expanding the PAAD low-cost prescription program to cover more seniors, 
and expanding cancer and diabetes research and education. He was also 
honored by the American Cancer Society, the Polish American World and 
the Department of the Public Defender for his outstanding efforts in 
the legislature. Ray Lesniak also takes great pride in having been the 
Grand Marshal of the Pulaski Day Parade in New York City in 2004.
  Ray Lesniak is a native of Elizabeth and a life-long New Jersey 
resident. He was raised in a political household where his mother, the 
late Stephanie Lesniak, served as a Democratic County Committeewoman 
for 30 years. She was his biggest fan and supporter and the inspiration 
for his career in government until her death in 2003 at the age of 85. 
She would be proud that her son has won international recognition for 
his achievements, but not surprised.
  When Senator Lesniak accepted the award from the Memorial de Caen, he 
said he was proud as an American to receive this recognition for the 
defense of human rights. He is dedicating his first place winnings to 
The Road to Justice and Peace, the non-profit foundation he formed to 
advance the abolition of the death penalty around the globe. Ray 
Lesniak teaches us that a dedicated public servant, who works 
tirelessly for a goal, can make a difference that has a far effect. I 
salute Senator Lesniak for his life's work and congratulate him on 
winning the International Human Rights Competition. His prize winning 
entry follows:

       I come here today not to plead a case for a victim whose 
     fundamental human rights have been violated. But, rather, to 
     plead the case that the death penalty violates the 
     fundamental human rights of mankind. In my country, the 
     United States of America, over 3,000 human beings are 
     awaiting execution, some for a crime they did not commit. I 
     plead the case that the death penalty in the United States, 
     Iraq, Pakistan, Japan, wherever, exposes the innocent to 
     execution, causes more suffering to the family members of 
     murder victims, serves no penal purpose and commits society 
     to the belief that revenge is preferable to redemption.
       On December 17, 2007, New Jersey became the first state in 
     the Union to abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme 
     Court reinstated it in 1976. When Governor Jon Corzine signed 
     the legislation I sponsored into law, he also commuted the 
     death sentences of eight human beings. The Community of 
     Sant'Egidio in Rome, Italy, a lay Catholic organization 
     committed to abolishing the death penalty throughout the 
     world, lit up the Roman Colosseum to celebrate this victory 
     for human rights.
       How was this victory achieved? First, by demonstrating that 
     the death penalty creates the possibility of executing an 
     innocent human being. One of our founding founders, Benjamin 
     Franklin, quoting the British Jurist William Blackstone, 
     said: ``It's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to 
     imprison an innocent person.'' Yet Governor Corzine and my 
     legislation let no guilty person go free. It merely replaced 
     the death penalty with life without parole, eliminating the 
     possibility of putting to death an innocent human being. 
     Byron Halsey could have been one such human being. On July 9, 
     2007, Byron walked out of jail a free man after serving 19 
     years in prison for a most heinous crime: the murder of a 
     seven year old girl and an eight year old boy. Both had been 
     sexually assaulted, the girl was strangled to death, and 
     nails were driven into the boy's head. Halsey, who had a 
     sixth grade education and severe learning disabilities, was 
     interrogated for 30 hours shortly after the children's bodies 
     were discovered. He confessed to the murders and, even though 
     his statement was factually inaccurate as to the location of 
     the bodies and the manner of death, his confession was 
     admitted into evidence in a court of law. The prosecution 
     sought the death penalty.
       Halsey was convicted of two counts of felony murder and one 
     count of aggravated sexual assault. He was sentenced to two 
     life terms: narrowly evading the death penalty by the vote of 
     one juror who held out against it during the sentencing 
     portion of his trial.
       After spending nearly half his life behind bars, post-trial 
     DNA analysis determined, with scientific certainty, that 
     Byron did not commit the murders. A witness for the 
     prosecution at his trial is now accused of those crimes.
       But for the good judgment of that one juror, Mr. Halsey 
     might have been executed, and the real killer would never 
     have been discovered and brought to justice. Stories like 
     Byron's are not uncommon. Since 1973, 130 human beings on 
     death rows throughout the United States have been released 
     from jail for being wrongfully convicted. During that time 
     over 1,100 prisoners were executed. How many of them were 
     innocent? 3,309 remain on death row throughout the U.S. How 
     many of them are innocent? How many of the innocent will be 
     executed?
       It could be Troy Davis. He's been imprisoned since 1989 in 
     the State of Georgia for a murder he maintains he did not 
     commit. In one of Davis's numerous appeals, the Chief Justice 
     of the Georgia Supreme Court said, ``In this case, nearly 
     every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial 
     has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably. 
     Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to 
     being the shooter.'' Coles had testified against Davis at the 
     trial.
       On September 23, 2008, less than two hours before Davis was 
     due to be put to death by lethal injection, he received a 
     stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 14 
     the stay was lifted and the State of Georgia issued an 
     Execution Warrant for October

[[Page E268]]

     27. Three days before this execution date, the 11th Circuit 
     Court stayed the execution to consider a new appeal.
       Will Troy Davis be the next innocent person saved from 
     execution, or will he be the next innocent person executed? 
     Does the death penalty serve any purpose, other than to do 
     harm to everyone involved, and society in general? Does the 
     death penalty even console the families of murder victims?
       Not according to 63 family members of murder victims who 
     stated, in a letter to the New Jersey Legislature: ``We are 
     family members and loved ones of murder victims. We 
     desperately miss the parents, children, siblings, and spouses 
     we have lost. We live with the pain and heartbreak of their 
     absence every day and would do anything to have them back. We 
     have been touched by the criminal justice system in ways we 
     never imagined and would never wish on anyone. Our experience 
     compels us to speak out for change. Though we share different 
     perspectives on the death penalty, every one of us agrees 
     that New Jersey's capital punishment system doesn't work, and 
     that our state is better off without it.''
       Or more specifically stated by Vicki Schieber whose 
     daughter, Shannon, was raped and murdered, ``The death 
     penalty is a harmful policy that exacerbates the pain for 
     murdered victims' families.''
       Some argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder, 
     yet more than a dozen studies published in the past 10 years 
     have been inconclusive on its deterrent effect. In testimony 
     before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and 
     Property Rights of the United States Senate Judiciary 
     Committee in February 2006, Richard Dieter, Executive 
     Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, testified 
     that states without a death penalty statute have 
     significantly lower murder rates than their counterparts with 
     the death penalty. Mr. Dieter also testified that of the four 
     geographic regions in the U.S., the South, which carries out 
     80% percent of all executions in the country, has the highest 
     murder rate. Conversely, the Northeast, which implements less 
     than 1 percent of all executions, has the lowest murder rate 
     in the nation.
       Even those who believe the death penalty can act as a 
     deterrent admit that existing research has inconclusive 
     results. Professor Erik Lillquist of Seton Hall University 
     School of Law testified that recent econometric studies 
     conclude that the death penalty can act as a deterrent, but 
     only if the death penalty is implemented in a ``sufficient'' 
     number of cases. Conversely, he also maintained that other 
     studies suggest that executions can cause a ``brutalization 
     effect,'' in which the murder rate actually increases.
       Professor Lillquist stated: ``It just may be impossible to 
     know what the deterrent or brutalization effect is here . . . 
     at least as an empirical matter--simply because we're never 
     going to have a large enough database that can be removed 
     from the confounding variables, such that we can come to a 
     conclusion. When scientists run studies in general, we try to 
     do it in a controlled environment. You can't do that with 
     murders and the death penalty.''
       Jeffrey Fagan, Professor of Law and Public Health, Columbia 
     University and Steven Durlauf, Kenneth J. Arrow Professor of 
     Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison wrote in a letter 
     to the editor in the Philadelphia Enquirer on November 17, 
     2007: ``Serious researchers studying the death penalty 
     continue to find that the relationship between executions and 
     homicides is fragile and complex, inconsistent across the 
     states, and highly sensitive to different research 
     strategies. The only scientifically and ethically acceptable 
     conclusion from the complete body of existing social science 
     literature on deterrence and the death penalty is that it's 
     impossible to tell whether deterrent effects are strong or 
     weak, or whether they exist at all.''
       The professors concluded: ``Until research survives the 
     rigors of replication and thorough testing of alternative 
     hypotheses and sound impartial peer review, it provides no 
     basis for decisions to take lives.''
       While the death penalty inevitably executes the innocent, 
     exacerbates the pain and suffering of families of murder 
     victims and serves no penal purpose, the worse damage it does 
     is to a society that believes it needs to seek revenge over 
     redemption. The need for revenge leads to hate and violence. 
     Redemption opens the door to healing and peace. Revenge slams 
     it shut.
       A society that turns its back on redemption commits itself 
     to holding on to anger and a need for vengeance in a quest 
     for fulfillment that can not be met by those destructive 
     emotions. Redemption instead opens the door to the space that 
     asks healing questions in the wake of violence: questions of 
     crime prevention, questions of why some human beings put such 
     a low value on life that they readily take it from others, 
     questions that help us understand how to help those impacted 
     by violence; questions that take a back seat, and are often 
     ignored, when our minds and emotions are filled with a need 
     for revenge.
       Thirty-six states and the federal government of the United 
     States still impose the death penalty. The United States has 
     more human beings in prison and more violence than just about 
     every other civilized country in the world. As long as we 
     continue to choose revenge over redemption, it's likely we 
     will continue to be a leader in the amount of violence and 
     size of our prison population.
       It doesn't have to stay that way.
       When New Jersey abolished its death penalty, it chose 
     redemption over revenge, healing over hate, peace over war. 
     We need more states and our federal government to make those 
     same choices.
       Consider the following headlines which appeared side by 
     side in the New York Times: ``Iraqi Leaders Say the Way Is 
     Clear for the Execution of `Chemical Ali'.'' The other 
     headline read: ``Bomber at Funeral Kills Dozens in 
     Pakistan.''
       Both Iraq and Pakistan have the death penalty. After the 
     announcement setting the execution date for ``Chemical Ali,'' 
     San Jawarno, whose father and other family members were 
     killed in attacks directed by ``Chemical Ali'' said, ``Now my 
     father is resting in peace in his grave because Chemical Ali 
     will be executed.''
       The two events, the bombing in Pakistan and the words of 
     the bereaved son whose father was killed, are not unrelated. 
     We must speak up, at every forum, in our homes, our churches, 
     synagogues, mosques and temples, in our legislative bodies, 
     wherever an opportunity exists, to convince political 
     leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, anyone who 
     will listen, that the death penalty has no reason to exist, 
     promotes violence, and brings peace to no one: in the grave 
     or not.
       That was to be the end of my plea to abolish the death 
     penalty. Then I read a report from Amnesty International 
     about the 13-year-old girl who was stoned to death in a 
     stadium packed with 1000 spectators in Kismayo, Somalia. Her 
     offense? Islamic militants accused her of adultery after she 
     reported she had been raped by three men. Will this 
     senseless, inhumane killing ever end?
       Perhaps. The brutality of the death penalty and of Islamic 
     militants can end, if we speak out against it, wherever it 
     exists, in any shape, in any form.
       The death penalty is a random act of brutality. Its 
     application throughout the United States is random, depending 
     on where the murder occurred, the race and economic status of 
     who committed the murder, the race and economic status of the 
     person murdered and, of course, the quality of the legal 
     defense.
       I'm proud of the people of the State of New Jersey for 
     electing political leaders who ended this random act of 
     brutality. And I applaud Amnesty International for alerting 
     the good people of the world to the brutality of the Islamic 
     militants in Somalia who stoned to death that poor girl.
       No good comes from the death penalty, whether it's imposed 
     by duly elected governments, or by radical, religious 
     fanatics. No good.
       The burden of proof in the Court of Public Opinion should 
     be on those advocating for the death penalty. That burden has 
     not been met.
       Just ask Byron Halsey. Or Troy Davis. Or, if you could, 
     that 13-year-old girl.

                          ____________________