August 9, 2005
What's new with JSPAN?
|
The African American Museum in Philadelphia
Join us in using this
extraordinary exhibit to learn about Genocide in Darfur as seen through
the eyes of the youngest survivors. Come examine these pictures that
document the grim details of the violence they are surviving. Camel
riding Janjawid militiamen dismember bodies with machetes; soldiers
fire weapons at men as women desperately reach out to save them. A
lone armless child stands helplessly by as his home goes up in flames.
We with arms and resources can stand with these children and see to it
that their small voices crying out for justice are heard. With enough
of the world's people of hope saying no to genocide we can collectively
avert the needless horrors most of us sadly stood by and witnessed a
decade ago in Rwanda.
|
|
Below is an open letter from JSPAN to the State Senate and House of Representatives of Pennsylvania along with a copy of a speech by New York Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a former prosecutor and the chair of the New York State Assembly Committee on codes, about why he changed his position from that of a long-time supporter to an opponent of the death penalty.
Click on the link below to view the speech.
Letter to Members of the Pennsylvania Legislature
Dear Senator/Representative ___________:
Capital punishment continues to be a difficult political issue. As you probably are aware, the New York Court of Appeals recently struck down that State's death penalty statute because of an unconstitutional deadlock jury instruction required by law to be given by the trial court judge. Governor George Pataki and certain members of the New York State legislature responded by attempting to pass legislation that would cure this particular constitutional defect and reinstate the death penalty in New York. That effort was defeated in the legislature and New York has not reinstated the death penalty.
Among the opponents of the effort to reinstate the death penalty in New York was New York Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a former prosecutor, a 33-year veteran in elected politics and chair of the New York State Assembly Committee on Codes (which considers legislation affecting all criminal statutes), who cast his first vote against capital punishment in his entire political life.
We thought you would be interested in the moving remarks of Assemblyman Lentol, who delivered the keynote address at the July 25, 2005 Thurgood Marshall Journalism Awards Luncheon of the Death Penalty Information Center. A copy of that speech can be viewed by clicking here. In his speech, Assemblyman Lentol explains why, as a result of extensive hearings in late 2004 and early 2005, he changed from a long-time death penalty supporter to an opponent, and why the New York Assembly did not "fix" the unconstitutional New York death penalty law.
Ronald J. Tabak, Esquire, co-chair of the Death Penalty Committee of the American Bar Association's Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and an expert advisor to the Jewish Social Policy Action Network Death Penalty Policy Center, had the honor of introducing Assemblyman Lentol.
We would like to know where you stand on this important issue, whether or not you share the concerns expressed by Assemblyman Lentol, whether or not the Pennsylvania Legislature collectively shares these concerns, what you and your colleagues in the Pennsylvania Legislature are doing to address these concerns, and what we can be doing to work with you and your colleagues to make certain that no one is unfairly sentenced to death in Pennsylvania.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Fox Vice President JSPAN
Click here to view the text of Assemblyman Lentol's speech.
|
|
JSPAN's position on the hearings for Judge John G. Roberts
On more than one occasion, as members of a minority community, Jews in America have come to depend upon the Supreme Court of the United States to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitutional rights. We are, therefore, especially concerned with the appointment of the next Justice to the highest court in our land. As Americans, we expect and deserve the appointment of a Justice who will work tirelessly, fairly, and impartially to assure that the rights established in the Constitution and more than two centuries of judicial precedent are preserved, protected, and defended in the years ahead.
President George W. Bush has nominated Judge John G. Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who recently announced her resignation. President Bush chose to nominate Judge Roberts only after learning as much about Judge Roberts as it took to satisfy any concerns that he had.
Now, it is time for the Senate to give its advice and consent. Deciding whether or not to confirm the President's nominee is a solemn responsibility that requires the Senate to exercise its independent judgment.
It is incumbent upon the Senate to learn as much about Judge
Roberts as it takes to satisfy any of the Senate's concerns
before reaching its confirmation decision.
Therefore, we urge the Senate to obtain the full and complete record extant. We encourage each and every Senator to review and analyze Judge Roberts' record and credentials thoroughly and completely. We believe the Senate owes it to the nominee and the nation to provide Judge Roberts with a full and fair hearing during which all relevant lines of inquiry are openly and adequately addressed. Only by doing so can the Senate fulfill its responsibilities in a manner that affords the proper respect to Judge Roberts, the President, the Constitution, and the people the Senators were elected to represent.
In conducting its Constitutional duties, we urge the Senate to address our special concerns, including the right to privacy, the wall of separation between church and state, and adhering to judicial precedents.
If you are interested in the positions of other Jewish organizations on Judge Roberts' nomination as reported by the JCPA, please click here.
|
|
JSPAN’s Energy Committee invites comment...
Energy Committee members and our panel
of experts are conferring on an energy policy and action program for
JSPAN. Our volunteer experts include David
Barasch, Esq., ex-Consumer Advocate of
The need to discuss and advance energy policy is not changed a lot by the President’s success at getting an energy bill through the Congress. Our experts advise that the new Energy Bill is better than no bill – but not by much. So we have several fresh policies and initiatives under consideration for JSPAN. First, we propose a number of guiding principles for discussion by JSPAN members and Board -- -- that we encourage all to be gentler inhabitants of this planet,
-- that
we seek global stability, and to that end, that we in the
-- that diversity and reliability factor heavily into our energy policy, and -- that we cushion the impacts, on the least able among us, of the major shifts and vicissitudes of energy markets and prices that occur from time to time. We are considering several specific energy related policies and actions for further action. These include, as examples: (1) Support for energy assistance to low income families, through programs including the federal LIHEAP funds (low income heating assistance program), the LIURP (low income usage reduction program) conservation effort, and the Utility Emergency Funds obtained from utility customer contributions. While gas and oil prices have risen dramatically, these funding sources have not kept pace. We might see if state or federal agencies can find additional help for those in need.
(2)
There are two proposals to establish LNG (liquefied natural gas)
terminals nearby on the
(3) There are clean coal technologies that deserve development,
particularly because of the large reserves that exist in
(4) We are concerned about climate
change. Although the federal government does not
officially admit that the problem exists,
(5) JSPAN could make more people aware of the McCain Bill that does address the global warming issue with a program to discourage the generation of greenhouse gas.
(6) We can also
work on programs to support better fuel efficiency of vehicles,
including support for hybrid vehicles despite their significant
problems. We could encourage the federal
government to utilize the authority given in the current Energy Bill
to significantly tighten present CAFE mileage requirements.
We might encourage
What do you think about energy supplies, conservation, and environmental impacts of our oil-based economy? We invite your ideas as we prepare a program for submission to the JSPAN Board. Give us your comments at www.jspan.org or ken@jspan.org.
|
|
