The death penalty has been described as one of the matters of highest priority to the American Jewish community. Marshall Dayan is eminently qualified to address our community about this critical issue. A graduate in 1986 of the Antioch School of Law in Washington, D.C., he became staff attorney for the North Carolina Death Penalty Resource Center in 1988, where he represented those accused or convicted of capital crimes for seven years, followed by three years in the Office of the Appellate Defender for the State of North Carolina. From 2001 to 2006, Dayan taught Constitutional law at North Carolina Central University School of Law, and accepted his current position in the spring of 2006 with national ACLU's Capital Punishment Project. He has been honored nationally for his death penalty work, most recently in 2003, when he received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Please join JSPAN for these important dialogues with Marshall Dayan!

The Pennsylvania Moratorium Commission is composed of diverse organizations from across the Commonwealth, including JSPAN, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International USA, Evangelicals for Social Action, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Pennsylvania, Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the Pennsylvania Council of Churches, the Pennsylvania Prison Society, Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty and Witness to Innocence.

The Coalition supports a suspension of executions in Pennsylvania while all aspects of the death penalty, as currently administered in the Commonwealth, are studied and any resulting recommendations fully addressed. At the press conference, Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo (D-Senate District 38) and a number of co-sponsors are expected to announce plans to introduce legislation that would accomplish this goal. Regardless of their philosophical positions on the death penalty, the organizations that make up the Pennsylvania Moratorium Coalition agree that the current practice of capital punishment in Pennsylvania needs to be reviewed because it is discriminatory and does not guarantee against the possibility of a wrongful execution.

It is the position of the Jewish Social Policy Action Network to oppose the death penalty as it is currently applied in the United States and to press for the immediate abolition of capital punishment. For more information about JSPAN's position on the death penalty, visit our web site at http://www.jspan.org/?cat=4.

In addition to the ruling in North Carolina, a federal judge in Missouri last year required the use of a doctor specializing in anesthesia in executions by lethal injection. In California, a federal judge ordered that an anesthesiologist or other licensed medical professional certify that a condemned inmate being executed by lethal injection was unconscious during the execution.

The American Medical Association for more than twenty years has said that physicians who take part in executions violate medical ethics. However, the AMA has no power to discipline doctors who do participate. Only state medical boards have that power.

The requirement imposed by federal judges that there be physician participation arises out of the botched execution in Florida of Angel Nieves Diaz last year. As a result of improper insertion of the needles for the IV injection of the lethal drugs, Diaz required a second injection, and some witnesses said he appeared to be in pain. Following the Diaz execution, Governor Jeb Bush suspended executions in Florida.

The Council drew public attention at its February 12, 2007 meeting, when Council President Ray, a minister, ordered everyone in the room to stand and hold hands. Councilman Kurt Schenk, also a minister, then delivered a Christian prayer.

The Freethought Society’s president, Margaret Downey, asked Ray and Schenk in a February letter to apologize for the prayer. Ms. Downey also asked that City Council adopt a neutral policy on religion. Despite the request, the City Council opened the next meeting on February 26 with The Lord’s Prayer, and Schenk and Ray refused to apologize, stating instead that they would continue to witness for their faith from the Council podium.

The ACLU then joined the Freethought Society in demanding an end to sectarian prayers at Council meetings. “Coatesville Council members must cease using their elected positions to promote their personal religious views. That is not only the law – which every elected government official has sworn to uphold – but is also the only way to show respect for the beliefs of all Coatesville residents, regardless of religion or creed,” wrote Mary Catherine Roper, staff attorney for the ACLU.

In the policy adopted by unanimous vote Monday, March 12, the Coatesville City Council stated it would no longer allow invocations that proselytize or advance any faith, or show any purposeful preference of one religious view to the exclusion of others. The policy also states that the Council “recognizes its constitutional duty to … amend its policies and ordinances to comply with constitutional requirements”. Under the new policy, Council members who so desire will take turns offering invocations before the Council begins its business, and “no prayer should proselytize or advance any faith, or disparage the religious faith or non-religious views of others.” Finally, the policy states that it “is intended to acknowledge and express the Council's respect for the diversity of beliefs, religious denominations and faiths represented and practiced among the citizens of the City of Coatesville.”

"The use of powerful and controlling governmental positions to proselytize is always divisive and offensive," said Margaret Downey, President of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. "The newly adopted Coatesville policy regarding prayer is one step forward toward accepting, respecting, and appreciating the wide philosophical and religious diversity of the community."

The Anti-Defamation League, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Jewish Social Policy Action Network will join the Freethought Society and the ACLU in monitoring Coatesville City Council meetings to ensure that the new policy is implemented properly.

A copy of the letter to the Coatesville City Council can be found on the ACLU of Pennsylvania website at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Coatesvilleletter.pdf.

To read the Coatesville City Council policy in its entirety, click here.

The Jewish Social Policy Action Network supports both the government and citizens of Israel in their goal of security for the Jewish State of Israel. We believe that this goal can be reached through a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a solution that will enable a more secure, prosperous and stable Israel as well as a more peaceful region.

A two-state solution, which is also the goal of the government of the United States, would enable Israel to establish secure borders for the first time since 1948 and would enable the Palestinians to achieve statehood for their own people. Therefore, we encourage the continued engagement of the United States as a partner in the Middle East peace process.

JSPAN will use its resources to promote this two-state solution and to encourage both the government of Israel and the government of the United States to work together to achieve a peaceful Middle East.

Several readers have asked me to comment on a Ha’aretz feature that rates Presidential candidates based on their views on Israel. Shmuel Rosner, the influential Ha’aretz correspondent (he also writes for SLATE and other outlets) states the mission of the project he calls, “The Israel Factor.” “Each month, a group of distinguished Israeli panelists, all of them experts on American policy and politics…will try to assess the candidates' positions on various Israel-related issues, and deliver their verdict on whom they consider to be the best candidate for Israel.”

It’s a troubling concept because neither Rosner nor anyone else can claim that a group of Israeli “experts” in any way reflect the views of Jewish American voters. The views of Israelis about who is or isn’t “good for Israel” is no more relevant than a similar poll of Israelis or Jewish Americans about the upcoming French Presidential elections.

It is also offensive. It would be one thing if the “Israel Factor” was published only in the Hebrew version of Ha’aretz for local consumption. But it is published in the English-language version which is primarily read here. As such, it smacks of a bunch of non-Americans telling Americans how to vote. Imagine how Israelis would react if a group of American “experts” rated their candidates for Prime Minister in a Hebrew language paper!