Judge Finds Federal Executions Unconstitutional

Judge Finds Federal Executions Unconstitutional Mon Jul 1, 6:29 PM ET By Gail Appleson, Law Correspondent

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. trial judge on Monday declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional, calling it tantamount to "state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings."

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff was the first by a federal trial judge to find the current federal death penalty law unconstitutional. It comes at a time of growing national debate about capital punishment, sparked partly by recent exonerations of death-row inmates because of DNA evidence.

Although it was unclear whether the decision would be upheld on appeal, legal experts said Rakoff presented a unique analysis based on due-process violations that would open the door to a serious challenge to the federal death penalty.

The U.S. Justice Department ( news - web sites) said Rakoff did not have the authority to issue the ruling and said the decision was under review.

Rakoff cited research, including DNA testing, that shows evidence of a person's innocence often does not emerge until long after a conviction. He said due-process provisions were being violated because the death penalty not only deprived death-row inmates of a chance to exonerate themselves but created an "undue risk" that innocent people would be killed.

"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, named to the bench by President Bill Clinton.

"I think it is absolutely compelling," said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University. "This decision was powerfully reasoned, and whatever the public reaction, it is bound to get a serious hearing before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court."

Rakoff's ruling applies only to the case pending before him. If the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) upholds the ruling, it could stop federal executions in New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

It has no impact on state courts in the 38 states that have capital punishment. Compared with state executions, federal executions are relatively rare in the United States.

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, a total of 784 people have been executed under state laws, and two under the 1994 federal death penalty laws, including Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh ( news - web sites) last year. Twenty-five inmates are on federal death row.

U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said: "The determination of how to punish criminal activity within the limits of the Constitution is a matter entrusted to the democratically elected legislature, not to the federal judiciary.

"Congress passed the Federal Death Penalty Act to save lives, and the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly said the death penalty is constitutional. Judge Rakoff's opinion to the contrary is under review."

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) has vigorously pursued the federal death penalty and has even overruled Justice Department prosecutors in a number of cases.

Tracey Meares, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said she had doubts the 2nd Circuit would uphold the ruling, but said even if Rakoff were overturned, he had paved the way for other challenges.

Death penalty opponents hailed the ruling as a sign the nation's judiciary was beginning to follow their views.

"Judges are starting to realize what many people in the American public realize. ... The system is irreparably flawed," said David Elliot, spokesman for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

"It's been proven that the death penalty is reserved for people of color, people who can't afford a good lawyer, people who are on the margins of society," he added.

Maryland and Illinois have already declared moratoriums on executions pending reviews of the system's fairness on racial and geographic grounds. The American Bar Association has supported a moratorium on federal executions since 1997.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) in a landmark decision striking down laws in 20 states, ruled that executing the mentally retarded violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. By a 6-3 vote, it said a national consensus had emerged to declare unconstitutional such executions as excessive punishment, based on evolving standards of decency.

In the case before Rakoff, two alleged drug dealers were scheduled to go on trial in Manhattan on Sept. 3 for the killing of a government informant. Prosecutors planned to seek the death penalty if the men were convicted.

When Rakoff issued his preliminary finding in April, he gave prosecutors time to file papers challenging his reasoning. But the judge soundly rejected their arguments.

In one of the government's challenges, prosecutors argued that the U.S. Congress that enacted the Federal Death Penalty Act in 1994 fully debated whether the act should go into effect despite the risk innocent people might be killed.

"Congress determined that enactment was warranted, based at least in part upon a balancing of a defendant's rights against the rights of innocent victims," prosecutors argued.

Rakoff said the government's showing in support of those claims was "wholly inadequate."

"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, named to the bench by President Bill Clinton.

If there was every any doubt, this is the reason why we need to elect Republicans.

The U.S. Justice Department ( news - web sites) said Rakoff did not have the authority to issue the ruling and said the decision was under review.

This judge said essentially, "forget the law, my opinion's wiser." This is a man who's lost touch with both his humanity and reality. There seems to be an epidemic of narcissism on the left. We should quarantine them for the nation's self-defense... Alcatraz?

Good one.

OK, fair enough, they use DNA to get people off- DNA should also be a fair standard of proof for giving the death penalty. I don't see how they can have it both ways. They could tighten the standard of proof if they wanted but if the killer's DNA was found on the murder victim along with other damning evidence, why is this not good enough to convict with capital punishment for a sentence?

Federal district court (trial level) judges are a dime a dozen. Their opinions are subject to two levels of appellate review (their circuit plus the supremes). They're also appointed for life so often come up with off-the-wall opinions that reflect their own personal prejudices.

In short, I wouldn't worry much about this character; his decision is unlikely to withstand appellate review.

That said, I've often said that the feds lack the gumption to carry out the death penalty on a consistent scale, so we'll just have to see.

"Rakoff cited research, including DNA testing, that shows evidence of a person's innocence often does not emerge until long after a conviction."

But now that DNA testing is available, it is used during investigations and at trial, assuming it's relevant. This reasoning no longer applies. We now have DNA technology, and it can readily be used either as evidence against suspects and defendents or to clear them.

"It's been proven that the death penalty is reserved for people of color..."

This has been conclusively shown by statistical evidence NOT to be the case. In initial attempts to attack the death penality on racial grounds, this was investigated. It did not hold up at all, and attempts to use it as an argument were abandoned.

"There seems to be an epidemic of narcissism on the left."

No kidding. The few leftists I happen to know personally are generally narcissists: stagey, histrionic, "compassion" show-offs who need an admiring audience.

A U.S. trial judge on Monday declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional, calling it tantamount to "state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings."

Excuse me? Did he say, "innocent human beings?"

Does this nitwit actually think that someone who's been tried and convicted is still "innocent?" And he's a judge?

Where in the world do they dig these idiots up?

Excuse me? Did he say, "innocent human beings?" Does this nitwit actually think that someone who's been tried and convicted is still "innocent?" And he's a judge?

I agree that his core assertion is wrong. It questions the integrity of our jury system. I think there's little question that at least a few innocent men have been executed in this country, if only on statistical basis. Nonetheless, while that may make for interesting conjecture, it's wrong for judges to question the outcome from juries. As long as the operating parameters for trials are sound, the decisions of juries are sacrosanct. This judge wants to change that. He asserts that, because juries make mistakes and the death penalty is irreversible, we should eliminate the death penalty altogether. However, I would assert that justice doesn't have to be absolutely effective in order to be practically effective. I find little in his reasoning to convince me that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

That said, let me say that I am personally opposed to the death penalty on religious grounds. I would prefer that people convicted of capital crimes be confined for the remainder of their natural lives in prison without the opportunity for parole. Prison overcrowding be damned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.