CITY COUNCIL MEETING TURNS CONTENTIOUS

t the City Council meeting of June 26th, two related Resolutions were discussed on issues that hit a raw nerve with many. They were Councilman Bill Perkins' extremely important Resolution 12-A, "urging the Governor and State Legislature to place a moratorium on all executions until the application of capital punishment in New York is investigated and issues of fairness, justice, equality, due process and cost are addressed," and Councilman Charles Barron's Resolution calling for amnesty for political prisoners.

Councilwoman Yvette Clarke, Chair of the Criminal Justice Committee, to which Resolution 12-A was assigned for consideration, began by giving her committee's findings: the death penalty in New York is applied with racial and economic bias, and innocent people have been sentenced to die. "Prudence demands that Governor Pataki pause executions until a review of the system can be concluded. In response to the glaring flaws in the administration of capital punishment, the nation should conduct a thorough, nationwide review of the death penalty. No executions should go forward until the State and Federal administration creates an independent, Blue Ribbon Commission examining the system of capital punishment--systems so riddled with errors that for every eight people executed in the modern death penalty era, one person on death row has been found innocent."

Councilmen Oliver Koppell and Al Vann, two veteran members of the State Legislature, each spoke with pride of having voted against the death penalty for 20 years and 27 years respectively in the Legislature. Koppell said that it is particularly appropriate to have a moratorium on the death penalty in light of the very recent reexamination of the death penalty by the Supreme Court "which held that many state laws are in fact unconstitutional because they provide the execution of those with mental disabilities."

Stated Vann, "We all know the death penalty does not deter murder, and that there is racism in the system. Most significantly, our system is imperfect. Imperfection in other venues perhaps can be reversed, but imperfection as it relates to the death penalty, where one may be killed unjustifiably, there is no reversal."

The Resolution's sponsor, Councilman Perkins stated, "With more than 100 innocent Americans sentenced to death since 1973, a moratorium on executions is both timely and necessary, and we hope that the Governor will take this Resolution to heart and do the right thing."

Others, however, came out strongly against the Resolution. One Member said she didn't think it was right that the City Council advocate for things that aren't in its jurisdiction, while another stated that even though he knows the current system in far from perfect, he still believes it does provide a measure of justice. Another Councilman spoke of his own family having experienced a crime punishable by death, and how glad they were that the death penalty was an option.

Despite this, when the votes were counted, the Resolution passed 39 to 13 with no abstentions.

Soon, however, controversy reached new heights when Councilman Charles Barron rose to speak of his really quite moderate Resolution calling for amnesty for political prisoners.

He pointed out that the City Council has a history of supporting political prisoners. It passed a Resolution in support of a member of the Irish Republican Army, as well as in favor of Puerto Rico's FALN. "It is time," said Barron, "for us to look at Black political prisoners from 30 years ago and realize that COINTELPRO was proven to have manufactured evidence and persons perjured themselves to get radicals in Black organizations arrested. It is time that we get a hearing on that, for there are political prisoners languishing in America's prisons for over 30 years."

He spoke of one political prisoner in particular, Anthony Jalil Bottom, who was, on very spotty evidence, convicted of killing police officers 30 years ago. Even the children of one of the officers support his parole, and stated Barron, "If they can do it, then we should at least give it a hearing."

Several members rose in favor of the Resolution, such as James Sanders who made the point that these prisoners are, by now, in their 60s, offer no threat to the country, and, that "the real issue is justice. If they had been convicted and politics had not played a role, they would have been released already. They've served much more than the average amount of time for people who have done similar things."

But overwhelmingly, the comments--all made by white Council Members, mostly male--were vehemently opposed, and expressed in such a manner that at times one could wonder whether they'd taken leave of their senses. Variously, Council Members said they were "offended and insulted," "appalled and disgusted" that this Resolution was even being entertained in the City Council. All political prisoners were painted as ruthless "cop killers, assassins," and "cowardly revolutionaries who used the backs of random police officers for target practice." One said that he hoped and prayed "that those treacherous murderers never get to walk these streets again." References were made comparing the political prisoners to Hitler and bin Ladin.

As the discussion went on, there were those who even implied that Barron didn't have the right to have raised the issue of amnesty for political prisoners at all, and some questioned Barron's patriotism as an American citizen, calling him "a supporter of domestic terrorism."

Fortunately, there were persons such as Councilmen Larry Seabrook and Allan Jennings who just as fiercely defended Councilman Barron's First Amendment rights, vehemently condemning the attempt to silence him. Said Seabrook, "We have a right to disagree, to vote no, but we should never ever talk about suppressing a person's First Amendment right." And Jennings stated hotly, "How dare any member of this body condemn another for speaking his mind for what his constituents sent him here to do! Any one of you has the right to say anything and not one of us has a right to shut you up!"

And a very welcome voice of reason came from Eric Gioia as well, who said, "Growing up I wanted to become a lawyer because I believed that the law is the great equalizer, literally David's slingshot against Goliath, a place that poor people, people who don't have a way to protect themselves, can go and defend themselves against people who are much bigger, have more money and are more powerful. However, being a student of history and of American jurisprudence, I'll say that unfortunately in our history our legal system has not always been right. A guilty verdict has not always been tantamount to guilt. And I'll also defend all of my colleagues' rights to speak their minds. I think it was Bobby Kennedy who said 'I love my country, but that does not mean I can't criticize it.' And I will defend all of my colleagues who do so."

The final word was given to Councilman Kendall Stewart who said, "I feel that we are unjustly characterizing Councilman Barron. I feel we should look at the Resolution again and really examine the words and what they say, and if you're for fairness, justice, and equality you will want to support this Resolution."

Let us hope that this will be the final outcome of this contentious debate.