You're in luck, troll! The federal death penalty is unconsitutional. For now.

[KillerMuffin]

From HERE at Reuters
A trial judge on Monday became the first U.S. judge to declare the current federal death penalty unconstitutional, calling it tantamount to "state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings."

U.S. District Judge Rakoff, who became the focus of heated national debate when he warned in April that he might rule against federal executions, said research showed that innocent people are being killed without the opportunity for exoneration.

"The unacceptably high rate at which innocent persons are convicted of capital crimes, when coupled with the frequently prolonged delays before such errors are detected...compels the conclusion that execution under the Federal Death Penalty Act...denies due process and, indeed, is tantamount to foreseeable, state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings," said Rakoff.

Not to argue the death penalty itself here, but the Judge and what he said.

From what I gather, he decided that the death penality is unconstitutional because it denies due process and is tantamount to murder of innocent human beings.

Irregardless (I really don't care if that's not a word, hush) of your views on the death penalty, was this judge within his rights to rule this way? It appears that personal feelings as opposed to "pure" law were the motivating factor in his decision. Appears, not necessarily is. Was his ruling correct, based on our ideals of the way law is supposed to work, or was it incorrect, based on the same ideals? Why or why not?

 

[TWB]

From what I gather, he decided that the death penality is unconstitutional because it denies due process and is tantamount to murder of innocent human beings.

. . . was this judge within his rights to rule this way?

. . . It appears that personal feelings as opposed to "pure" law were the motivating factor in his decision.

. . . . Was his ruling correct, based on our ideals of the way law is supposed to work, or was it incorrect, based on the same ideals? Why or why not?

Death is irreversible. Since you can't appeal it, you clearly have had a denial of due process if the government kills you and if you are innocent and can prove it later.

There is no question the judge was "within his rights" to rule this way. If an action is unconstitutional then he is just the guy to say so.

"Personal feelings" or personal beliefs are always part of judicial decisions. One does not become a judge without some belief system (usually (heh)). Our legal system is fluid, too. What is not cruel and unusal punishment one day may be in the future. It is interesting that this decision appears to not have been based on that, which has been a battle in the past, but on due process grounds.

Who can argue with the logic? I am sure some here will try, and the supreme court will ultimately come to the wrong conclusion in overturning the decision. Right after screwing up the "under god" case.





PS: Which troll is your comment aimed at??

 

[teddybear4play]

The Supreme Court rules on matters of constitutionality. This joker just wanted to make a name for himself.

I especially like how he warned the prosecution he was going to simply rule capital punishment unconstitutional if they sought it in their case, which cocerns two Bronx drug kingpins who allegedly tortured and killed an informant. The prosecution didn't flinch, and he just took it off the table like that. Can we say "drunk on power"?

TB4p

 

[TWB]

No, all courts rule on the constitutionality of statutes. A lower court can rule on whether a statute meets constitutional muster.

Someone has to lose and appeal, generally.

 

[scylis]

no death penalty means more business for me. i'm busy as it is. i'm making a quite good living off of my current amount of business.

i don't need more business.

 

[Guest]

no death penalty means more business for me. i'm busy as it is. i'm making a quite good living off of my current amount of business.

i don't need more business.

Damn, maybe I need to change careers. Will you train me?

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Everyone read carefully now......

From HERE at Reuters
A trial judge on Monday became the first U.S. judge to declare the current federal death penalty unconstitutional.

Federal death penalty! He can not rule on the constitutionality of state death penalty laws! I think he presents a poor argument. If "due process" has been denied it should be presented at trial or appeal, not at the punishment, but I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on TV.

Ask Siren.

Rhumb

 

[scylis]

Damn, maybe I need to change careers. Will you train me?

nope. i work alone.

 

[TWB]

Re: Everyone read carefully now......

From HERE at Reuters
A trial judge on Monday became the first U.S. judge to declare the current federal death penalty unconstitutional.

Federal death penalty! He can not rule on the constitutionality of state death penalty laws! I think he presents a poor argument. If "due process" has been denied it should be presented at trial or appeal, not at the punishment, but I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on TV.

Ask Siren.

Rhumb

Assuming (this is a big assumption) that the federal position was changed by this ruling, state courts would likely follow suit. If it was unconstitutional for the federal govt to do it, then states would be bound by the 14th amendment.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: Everyone read carefully now......

Assuming (this is a big assumption) that the federal position was changed by this ruling, state courts would likely follow suit. If it was unconstitutional for the federal govt to do it, then states would be bound by the 14th amendment.

Yes, except those states where the death penalty is strongly supported. They will not change and claim protection under the X Amendment until the Supreme Court rules.

Rhumb

 

[modest mouse]

It has always been unconstitutional.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: You're in luck, troll! The federal death penalty is unconsitutional. For now.

Death is irreversible. Since you can't appeal it, you clearly have had a denial of due process if the government kills you and if you are innocent and can prove it later.

There is no question the judge was "within his rights" to rule this way. If an action is unconstitutional then he is just the guy to say so.

"Personal feelings" or personal beliefs are always part of judicial decisions. One does not become a judge without some belief system (usually (heh)). Our legal system is fluid, too. What is not cruel and unusal punishment one day may be in the future. It is interesting that this decision appears to not have been based on that, which has been a battle in the past, but on due process grounds.

Who can argue with the logic? I am sure some here will try, and the supreme court will ultimately come to the wrong conclusion in overturning the decision. Right after screwing up the "under god" case.

Yep, I'm going to be the guy who does it.

You have a rather interesting idea of what denial of due process actually is. Everyone convicted under the Federal Death Penalty statute has at least two opportunities to appeal their case. Failing that, their sentence can be lessened, or absolved entirely by the President.

It seems to me that if you are accused of a crime and have three or four separate opportunities, spanning several years, to raise a reasonable doubt with a judge or jury, you've had plenty of due process.

 

[Siren]

 

[modest mouse]

Re: Re: Re: You're in luck, troll! The federal death penalty is unconsitutional. Fo

It seems to me that if you are accused of a crime and have three or four separate opportunities, spanning several years, to raise a reasonable doubt with a judge or jury, you've had plenty of due process.

Not for the dozens of executed people who have had their trials essentially dismissed after death and those who were near execution before the truth came out.

If you're going to kill someone, perhaps you should be more than almost certain.

 

[markb325]

I have to agree with Siren. There has already been too many executions of innocent people in this country.

I do not however agree with the decession of this judge.

Not my call though just my opinion.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You're in luck, troll! The federal death penalty is unconsitutional. Fo

Not for the dozens of executed people who have had their trials essentially dismissed after death and those who were near execution before the truth came out.

If you're going to kill someone, perhaps you should be more than almost certain.

As far as I and the law concerned, if the defense is able to raise a reasonable doubt then the person is innocent. Thus, those executed for their crimes were executed with perfect certainty on the part of the jury, the appeals judges, and the President.

If you want to bring in DNA testing, that's fine. I have no problem at all with it. File the appeals, do the tests, then see what happens. That's what appeals are for.

It doesn't make the law unconstitutional, though. Not even close.

 

[JazzManJim]

I'd also like to kick around the notions that we have executed innocent people in this country.

We haven't. We excuted people who were at the time of their execution deemed guilty by a jury of their peers and several layers of appeal.

That later they might have been found to be innocent does not obviate that they were guilty when they were executed.

You're not allowed to sidestep their legal status to create the idea that we're killing people who are just completely and totally cluelessly innocent, which is exactly what is inferred with the phrase "executing the innocent".

 

[Guest]

"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers..."

 

[modest mouse]

Jim,

Bust into reality soon, the rest of us will wait.

Semantics are all cool and shit, the system is in place but failure to recognize the flaws that ultimately lead to the death of another person is naive.

 

[modest mouse]

Paraphrase:

"At the time we knew they were 100% guilty."

(shrug)

 

[Siren]

 

[Azwed]

OMG, where to begin here.

A jury verdict based on the evidence presented but without DNA testing is not a fair hearing with all the evidence presented and is therefore unconstitutional based on due process.

If not given an opportunity to be fully heard with the latest DNA testing, you are not given due process.

And you are not guilty when due process has not been fully met.

As for filing appeals asking for DNA testing......
it is not that simple.
Many can not get the testing.
many prosecutors have used up the entire sample and/or destroyed residual samples or they have been damaged in storage.

Asking for DNA is not a simple request.
There are many roadblocks.

You have no idea how difficult it is to be heard on new issues not presented at time of trial. Please dont diminish the difficulty in being heard based on new evidence......it is almost impossible.
One court even said, proof of innocence was not a valid reason for the court to review the case, only errors from trial.

Can you imagine that?

Due Process can not be met when all evidence is not heard....when all testing is not conducted and when all information is not before a jury.

And that is why siren rocks and the rest of you don't

Please don't even try to argue with her.

 

[markb325]

Jim I have to disagree with you here.

Innocent people have been convicted on purely circumstantial evidence and sentence to death. Also there have been a few cases where new evidence was brought to light and the DA of whatever city has refused to hear it, or a motion for a new trail was denied without the evidence being heard. Yes there has been innocent people executed and it will probably continue until DNA evidence is used more frequently in cases involving the death pelanty.

Siren please correct me if I am wrong on any of my statement.

 

[Siren]

 

[Azwed]

Thanks Azwed........

but in all fairness,
Death Penalty Criminal Defense is a speciality in criminal law practice..........
you need to have a particular amount of experience and training......
I have had wonderful mentors in this area of law, and I have been involved in death penalty cases ranging from 14 victim serial murders, rape murders, robbery murders, kidnapping murders....etc.......

So, I happen to know this area of law extremely well.......that is why I have so much information.....

It isnt fair to judge my responses to others that cant possibly have as much information.







But, you are right about one thing Azwed...............

I do rock ahahahahahahaha

I know you have experience in this area and that is why I said they should not bother to argue with you. None of them are going to have as much hands on experience as you do.

Bah this isn't a courtroom who cares about fair practices

Side note:

Have you ever thought about having sex in a courtroom? I just have this odd desire to get it on either on top of the tables in the front of in the witness box.