Posted on 07/01/2002 9:04:54 AM PDT by Dog Gone
NEW YORK (AP) -- A judge declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional Monday, saying too many innocent people have been sentenced to death.
U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff issued a 28-page ruling reaffirming his earlier opinion that the death penalty act violated the due process rights of defendants.
The federal government was expected to appeal the ruling, which would not affect individual states' death penalty statutes.
The court found that the best available evidence indicates that, ``on the one hand, innocent people are sentenced to death with materially greater frequency than was previously supposed and that, on the other hand, convincing proof of their innocence often does not emerge until long after their convictions.''
Rakoff had indicated in April that he was considering declaring the federal death penalty unconstitutional and gave prosecutors one last chance to persuade him otherwise before he ruled on a pre-trial defense motion to find the statute unconstitutional.
In papers filed May 16, U.S. Attorney James B. Comey urged Rakoff to resist ruling on the issue at all until after a Sept. 2 drug conspiracy murder trial.
Prosecutors noted that the Supreme Court had already concluded that the due process safeguards of the Constitution do not guarantee perfect or infallible outcomes.
They also challenged the judge's conclusion that studies had shown numerous innocent individuals were being sentenced to death, saying the studies all involved state courts.
In 14 years that the federal death penalty has been in place, none of the 31 defendants sentenced to death have later been found to be innocent, the government said.
In the case before the judge, Alan Quinones and Diego Rodriguez, alleged partners in a Bronx-based heroin selling operation, are accused of hogtying, torturing and killing an informant, Edwin Santiago, on June 27, 1999.
It'll be interesting if and when one of these terrorists is tried in the Ninth Circuit!
Good, he is right.
Our Amendment V states, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Obviously the founders sanctioned the death penalty. US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson had this to say in 1791,
"There are, in punishments, three qualities, which render them the fit preventives of crimes. The first is their moderation. The second is their speediness. The third is their certainty."29 years on Death row is too long.
If he is in fact the rapist and sex offender that he is accused of being, then in my opinion yes, he should indeed be on death row.
No, I think not. This creates a higher "class" of citizen with more "protections" (if you will) than the rest of us.
The murder of a Federal official should have no more impact, and recieve no more attention than the murder of one of us peons.
Also, with the one exception outlined in the Constitution, I see no Federal authority to execute anyone outside the confines of a declared war.
I first became aware of this when I was in college in Florida and was taking courses in legal research and writing as a minor. The original item that brought this to my attention was a case in Tampa in where a father and daughter had been charged by the state of Florida with drug trafficking and brought to trial. The state failed to prove their case and the pair was found not guilty. The state then turned the matter over to the feds for the pair to be charged under Federal law and again they were tried, only this time the feds were able to obtain a conviction and the pair went to prison.
I have since that time on three different occasions asked three separate judges as to why that does not constitute a violation of the double jeopardy clause. The judges gave me all kinds of legal rhetoric as to why it does not violate double jeopardy and most of it centered around the argument that the constitution views the state courts as one government and the federal courts as another government. However, the bottom line to all of their arguments was “Because that’s they way we do it.”
I have always found that somewhat concerning and it goes to supporting my believe that if the government decides that they want to target you, they have many creative ways of getting that done.
Hopefully that won't ever happen. That would require an attack on the west coast...
Isn't that why I was supposed to vote for Bush? Because he was going to get some conservative judges confirmed...
Which kind do ya think Bush would pick? Those that would smash down the Patriot act or CFR?
DON'T BE THINKIN' SO!
Good, he is right.
And I'm sure, since you are so certain of the correctness of the above, you'd be willing to share the name of one person executed by the feds that was later determined to be innocent...
Just one is all I ask - I eagerly await your response :0)
You are assuming that all those put to death were put to death for the crimes of Treason, Counterfeitting or Piracy.
That is why I suggested you look at the specifics. There is no constitutional authority for the feds to prosecute crimes other than those three listed unless the crimes occurred on federally controlled land.
What part of my statement was false? Be specific.
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.