Judicial review as established by Marbury v. Madison is judicial activism in its purest sense.
I'm not following your reasoning. If today's decision is an attempt at a clear reading of the Constitution, how can it be activist?
Posted on 06/24/2002 8:04:58 AM PDT by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of dozens of convicted killers Monday, ruling that juries and not judges must make such life-or-death decisions.
The 7-2 ruling affects the way death sentences are imposed in at least five states and means that more than 150 death sentences must be reconsidered.
Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment. The court held that such a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury.
It was the second major Supreme Court ruling in less than a week affecting the ways that states sentence people to death. Last week, the justices divided bitterly in exempting mentally retarded people from execution.
The court has also agreed to hear an appeal in the fall from Tennessee death row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman. That case could have far-reaching effects if the justices decide to loosen the rules for when condemned inmates can get new evidence before a judge.
Nationwide, about 3,700 people await execution for crimes committed in the 38 states that allow the death penalty.
In some states juries determine guilt or innocence, but a judge then can base a death sentence on aggravating factors such as the heinous nature of a murder or whether it was committed for monetary gain.
Monday's ruling turned on the Constitution's guarantee of a jury of one's peers and a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that struck down another kind of sentence determined by a judge instead of a jury.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for a majority that included an unusual alliance of conservative and liberal-leaning justices, said the court's 2000 ruling in a case called Apprendi v. New Jersey cannot be reconciled with the death penalty sentencing laws in Arizona and four other states in which one or more judges impose the sentence.
The Apprendi case concerned a judge's ability to lengthen a sentence by two years if a crime was determined to be a hate crime. The high court struck down that sentencing law.
"The right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished if it encompassed the factfinding necessary to increase a defendant's sentence by two years, but not the factfinding necessary to put him to death," Ginsburg wrote. "We hold that the Sixth Amendment applies to both."
Ginsburg was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to agree with the outcome.
The case concerned an Arizona inmate, and the ruling will immediately apply in that state and in Idaho and Montana, where a single judge decides the sentence. It will also apply immediately in Colorado and Nebraska, where a panel of judges makes the sentencing decision.
It was not immediately clear what will happen to inmates in those states. Some lawyers have said death row inmates' sentences could be commuted to life in prison, as was done when the Supreme Court put a temporary halt to the death penalty in the 1970s. Or the inmates could be resentenced, with some receiving death sentences all over again.
Also unclear was whether the ruling will have a spillover effect in four other states in which juries only recommend whether a convicted murderer should receive the death penalty or life in prison: Florida, Alabama, Indiana, and Delaware.
A judge makes the final call in those states. Indiana, however, recently passed a law that will require judges to follow a jury's sentencing recommendations.
In dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicted that many inmates in the additional four states will challenge their sentences now.
The earlier Apprendi ruling "had a severely destabilizing effect on our criminal justice system," O'Connor wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist "The decision today is only going to add to these already serious effects."
Arizona has 129 people on death row, Idaho 21 and Montana six. Colorado has five, and Nebraska seven. Florida has 383, Alabama 187, Indiana 39 and Delaware 20.
Timothy Stuart Ring was convicted of killing an armored car driver during a 1994 robbery in Phoenix.
Ring challenged his sentence and Arizona's law on grounds that his constitutional right to a jury was violated when a judge held a separate hearing after the jury that convicted Ring was dismissed.
The judge heard testimony at a sentencing hearing from an accomplice who said Ring planned the robbery and murdered the guard. The judge then determined that the aggravating factors warranted death.
"I was essentially given two trials," Ring said in an Associated Press interview earlier this year. "One before a jury and then one before a judge."
The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Ring's constitutional challenge last year.
Ring's case put the court in an awkward position. The high court had already upheld the constitutionality of Arizona's law in 1990, but that was before its ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Finding the two rulings irreconcilable, the high court took the rare step of overturning one of its own fairly recent decisions. The first decision was written by O'Connor, who defended it in her dissent Monday.
The case is Ring v. Arizona, 01-488.
Judicial review as established by Marbury v. Madison is judicial activism in its purest sense.
The Supreme Court upheld the sentence because: 1.the sentence that he received could have been imposed for the crime even without the judge finding the brandishing(he faced a MINIMUM of 5 years), and 2.the sentence did not exceed the maximum that he could receive from a jury conviction of the crime(MAXIMUM = life).
I agree that it is very confusing and is only partially(if at all)consistent with the Ring case. Basically, for crimes where there is a sentence range, the judge can sentence within that range as long as the sentence does not exceed the "normal" maximum allowed for that crime. If the legislature allows a sentence above the maximum for certain types of that crime(e.g., death sentence for certain 1st degree murders, add'l prison time for certain crimes when motivated by "hate"), then the jury must find that those facts exist before a judge can impose the sentence above the "normal" maximum for that crime.
Hope my explanation didn't confuse you more.
As would I, any day. Well said.
Judicial review as established by Marbury v. Madison is judicial activism in its purest sense.
I'm not following your reasoning. If today's decision is an attempt at a clear reading of the Constitution, how can it be activist?
In that case, you know who else might want them?
I suppose, though, this was perhaps part of the reason the decision was so bitterly contested, although I have not read the dissenting opinion in order to see what the rationale behind it was.
As a side note, I do feel today's decision in Ring was a blow against the death penalty, although only directly affecting 5 states (likely a few more, including my home state of Indiana--in light of today's decision by the Court, I see no way a lower court could rule that a judge who chose to impose a death sentence after a jury recommended life could in any way be constutitional. This is Indiana, FL, et al.) Anyhow, us anti-death penalty advocates are used to our victories one baby-step at a time, or in this case, 5 states at a time. All in all, the last 2 days of decisions, things are pretty right with the world.
I'm for jury nullification, though it would be kind of odd for sentencing phase juries (makes good sense for guilt phase though). Unfortunately jury nullification has never been very popular, though it should be in the judges instructions somewhere.
Whether it is deciding guilt or innocence or deciding death or life it is an impartial jury that decides both those separate issues. That's The Point.
Also, jury nullification -- to judge the law not just the fact -- for the first 106 years since the constitution was first ratified was routine jury instruction. I would say that it was very popular. For the last 109 years that instruction has not been given to juries. I would say that it has not been at all popular to non-existent in that time frame due to honest justice being shelved in favor of agenda-judges, or as you put it, activist judges.
The question is not who determines sentences. The issue here is who determines the facts, judges or juries. Ring was convicted of felony murder, meaning someone was killed in the course of a felony, and no matter how many people were involved in the felony and no matter who actually committed the murder, all persons involved in the felony can be convicted of the murder. According to the law, Ring could then only be sentenced to death if the judge determined that he was the person who actually pulled the trigger. During the sentencing hearing, the judge accepted the testimony of Ring's accomplice, who fingered Ring as the triggerman. But the jury never heard this testimony at trial. The jury in fact heard no evidence that identified Ring as the actual killer at all.
If the state wants to sentence him to death for being the actual killer, then the state should prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that he is in fact the actual killer. I think it's a good decision.
It doesn't apply to just death sentences. This case is based on the Apprendi decision from 2000, which stated that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is virtually tantamount to saying that they don't have faith in our justice system. If this is case, they should quit and get a new job.
If the barometer for government workers keeping their jobs was their faith in the system, the AFSME rolls would consist of two people. They are both in a coma.
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.
