Skip to comments.
Federal appeals court in San Francisco overturns an estimated 100 death sentences.
CNN ^
Posted on 09/02/2003 12:35:19 PM PDT by jern
Federal appeals court in San Francisco overturns an estimated 100 death sentences. Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com (AOL Keyword: CNN) for the latest news.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; US: Arizona; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; deathpenalty; judicialactivism; judiciary; liberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
1
posted on
09/02/2003 12:35:20 PM PDT
by
jern
To: jern
Yeah!!! Let's throw a get out of jail free party!!!
2
posted on
09/02/2003 12:37:00 PM PDT
by
montag813
To: jern
I think their cases were commuted to life in prison. I have no problem with that, as long as they stay in prison until they die. That rarely happens.
3
posted on
09/02/2003 12:38:32 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Peach
Their sentences were commuted or do are they going to be resentenced?
4
posted on
09/02/2003 12:39:10 PM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: jern
This is ridiculous!
To: jern
God bless the Feds...they are so dear.
6
posted on
09/02/2003 12:42:23 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
("when shrimps learn to whistle")
To: jern
Nothing but Judicial activism. These liberal judges in Calif just don't want the death penalty. Screw the presiding judges and juries in these cases. Screw the American people that overwelmingly want the death sentance. Screw the victims of these peoples crimes.
Getting to where we are going to need another revolution to rid ourselves of these maggots in govt.
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: Joe Boucher
Don't blame California, this was a Federal court. Of course, I would think that the people of California are used to being ridden roughshod by the Feds by now.
9
posted on
09/02/2003 12:45:44 PM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: Joe Boucher
I bet they were doing it for "the children"
To: Peach
How about the people they will kill while they serve their life sentences?
11
posted on
09/02/2003 12:46:43 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Tick, tock, tick, tock...the sound of the clock ticking down the time until Tom drops out.)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: jern
The gist of the ruling, which commuted the sentences to life without parole btw, was that these men had been sentenced to die by a judge, instead of by the jury.
From what I gather, the juries were not deciding punishment phase, and the court said that this violates the "jury of peers" thing.
I think it's an interesting legal issue actually. Only if the defendents prior to the fact demanded that the jury sentence them not a judge. I think a judge can properly do so, but there can be a legal argument that you should be allowed to let your peers determine your sentence.
To: Joe Boucher
I can understand those that oppose both abortion and the death sentence under the premise that all life is precious (I don't agree that ALL life is precious, but I understand). But those who advocate killing the innocent unborn and let the murderers free are undoubtedly willingly doing Satan's work.
14
posted on
09/02/2003 12:48:09 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Catspaw
I think commuted to life but even CNN seemed a little out of the loop and didn't seem to have a legal analyst on hand to help them out.
15
posted on
09/02/2003 12:48:47 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: TheDon
How about the people they will kill while they serve their life sentences? You mean like other prisoners? It works for me.
16
posted on
09/02/2003 12:50:18 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Ditto your #14 - truer words were never spoken.
17
posted on
09/02/2003 12:50:55 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Peach
Ok, so the Supreme Court ruled in 2002, that juries must be the ones giving death out. Then didn't say if they meant this retroactively or not. By not stating, the supreme court created this issue. If the Supremes said, from this day forward, instead of leaving it ambiguous, there wouldn't have been the legal issue here.
To: dogbyte12
The courts create nearly all the legal problems in this country with their deliberately ambiguous wording.
I saw it all the time in corporate America where I spent 60% of my day with in-house counsel. I'd recommend a change in verbiage and it didn't happen - must keep other attorneys in business you know. It's a self propogating business.
19
posted on
09/02/2003 12:56:28 PM PDT
by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: jern
the 9th circuit..............figures
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson