Can a white, middle class teacher reach Los Angeles barrio teens using the Diary of Anne Frank and other Holocaust teaching materials? The true story of how this teacher turned tough kids into teachable students was a successful book, and now it is a Paramount film starring Hilary Swank, Scott Glenn, Imelda Staunton and Patrick Dempsey. The film is being released here this month.

This is an entertaining film with a serious message. The teaching techniques are now being applied successfully in Philadelphia at Grover Washington Jr. Middle School, as reported in The Inquirer. For all the reasons you want to see this film, read Michael Elkin’s review on the front page of The Exponent this week.

See this entertaining film at no cost, if you – a reader of our newsletter – are or become a member of JSPAN. This Wednesday, January 10, at 7:30 pm, Freedom Writers will be performed for JSPAN members at the Ritz 5 at Second and Walnut Streets in Philadelphia. Join (or bring your membership dues up to date) on the web at www.JSPAN.org, and you can come to this performance free.*

Don’t miss this opportunity to enjoy a fine evening and support JSPAN too!

This film is rated PG-13 for violent content, some thematic material, and language

* If you are not internet handy, call 215-635-2554 and immediately send your dues payment by check to JSPAN at 355 River Birch Circle, Elkins Park, PA 19027. Family membership admits two. Present paid-up members are, of course, welcome without purchasing an additional membership.

Optional and Extra: Dessert and coffee and an informal discussion with Prof. Robert Vogel, educational consultant, and Michael Galbraith, teacher and Michael Rosenberg, principal at Grover Washington Jr. Middle School. At Positano Restaurant, across the street from the Ritz 5, after the film. Ten dollars couvert.

Following a national trend, a poll released on January 9, 2007, establishes that more Pennsylvanians prefer long sentences of incarceration than those supporting the death penalty as the punishment for even the worst murders.

As part of the annual Penn State Poll, the Center for Survey Research at the university’s Harrisburg campus found that only 42.9% of respondents supported the death penalty when presented with alternative sentences. 856 statewide participants were asked, “What do you think should be the penalty for persons convicted of murder?” 45.1% of those surveyed supported either life without parole (35.5%) or life with parole (9.6%). 10.4% answered, “Don’t know/Not sure” and 1.5% refused to answer.

The poll was commissioned by the Jewish Social Policy Action Network, the Pennsylvania Council of Churches, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Amnesty International USA, and Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

The Penn State Poll comes on the heels of the Death Penalty Information Center’s 2006 Year End Report, which was released on December 14, 2006, and is available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/2006YearEnd.pdf. In the report, DPIC noted that this year’s Gallup Poll showed support for life without parole trumping the death penalty. The report also indicated a significant decrease in both death sentences and executions around the country and moratoria in ten different states.

As a result of the new polling data, JSPAN and our co-sponsors for the Penn State survey have renewed our call for a suspension of executions in the Commonwealth accompanied by a comprehensive analysis of the functionality of the death penalty.

“It’s the least our State government can do,” said Andy Hoover, community organizer for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. A similar effort was recently undertaken in New Jersey, resulting in a recommendation that the death penalty be abolished in that State.

Roberta Fahn Schoffman, representing IPF in Israel, heads Mindset Media and Strategic Consulting. This piece is reprinted with permission.

No peace on earth, no good will toward men, just a silent night in Bethlehem. The expected droves of Christmas visitors to Nativity Square simply didn't show up, despite the offer by Israel's Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog to provide free transportation in and out of the city of Jesus' birth. The dismal pall cast over the holiday is representative of a deepening sense of gloom that has enveloped the Holy Land, and that accompanies the onset of the New Year.

For Christians, Muslims and Jews alike, 2006 has not been a good year. From the high expectations of disengagement to the plunging despair of Lebanon, the geopolitical situation has become ever more complex. Viewed by many as being the main impediment to wider regional stability, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been endowed with mega-qualities, as if by solving this dilemma the world will suddenly be flooded with peace and harmony and the chasm between democracies and fundamentalists will disappear. As we ritualistically ratchet up our optimism in the spirit of a new year, we can certainly hope for simple solutions. But looking at the escalating internecine fighting, the stunning lack of leadership, and the grave crises of confidence, it will take more than wishful thinking to create the changes on the ground needed to bring about peace.

On the other hand, though our region would seem, as usual, to teeter on the brink of disaster -- Fatah and Hamas tilting toward all-out civil war, more assassinations fueling age-old hatreds in Lebanon, Iraq gone wild, and Iran ever closer to becoming a nuclear power - - the last few weeks have shown an unexpected flurry of diplomatic activity.

With an uncanny instinct for survival, Prime Minister Olmert has secured his coalition for the next several months, by both insuring smooth passage in the Knesset Finance Committee of the 2007 state budget - - an impressive feat by any standard - - and by beginning to promote a diplomatic agenda. Through a series of well-choreographed meetings, Olmert seems to have finally returned to the path he charted for Kadima's election victory, aiming to jolt the country out of stalemate and toward a two-state solution. A key difference, however, is that he now appears to be moving away from the unilateral approach of his "convergence" plan, and, at least publicly, pursuing dialogue and negotiations.

FINDINGS

1. There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent.
2. The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole, but it is not possible to measure these costs with any degree of precision.
3. There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.
4. The available data do not support a finding of invidious racial bias in the application of the death penalty in New Jersey.
5. Abolition of the death penalty will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in capital sentencing.
6. The penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake.
7. The alternative of life imprisonment in a maximum security institution without the possibility of parole would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of the families of murder victims.
8. Sufficient funds should be dedicated to ensure adequate services and advocacy for the families of murder victims.

The Commission recommends that the death penalty in New Jersey be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, to be served in a maximum security facility. The Commission also recommends that any cost savings resulting from the abolition of the death penalty be used for benefits and services for survivors of victims of homicide.

JSPAN applauds the efforts of the Commission and encourages the Governor and Legislators of the State of New Jersey to act on the Commission’s findings and recommendations. See “Panel Seeks End to Death Penalty for New Jersey.”