Judge: Federal Death Penalty Unconstitutional

Associated Press ^ | Monday, July 01, 2002

[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.

[goldstategop]

If I were a Rat campaign consultant I couldn't think of worse news than this. The Federal judiciary is pissing liberal bilge like rain through a leaky roof.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Don't hold your breath. Public opinion has alreadty begun to move away from support of the death penalty, and this judge is clear that the federal government shouldn't have the power to kill its citizens.

We anti-death penalty advocates take our victories with a grain of salt, but all in all, this has been a good year for us. I'm not so positive this guy will be reversed, but in reality, I'm not sure that it's an issue other than making a statement against the death penalty. Wasn't McVeigh something like the first guy in 30 years to be executed by the Feds?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Folks, you gotta remember that this is a DISTRICT court judge. There are a whole slew of these kind of judges out there. Whoever brought this suit, no doubt brought it before this judge knowing his track record on the death penalty. Relax, rogue district court judges are routinely brought into line by the appellate courts.

[goldstategop]

Of course it IS constitutional. Even a retard reading the Constitution knows this. The Constitution takes the existence of the death penalty for granted. Just look at the wording of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Rakoff must have been reading a different Constitution than the rest of us when he issued his Soviet ukase.

[Free the USA]

A prime example of the problem with allowing Judges to define the meaning of words in the Constitution. The Judge can’t argue that due-process was not given to all the convicts sense they were all tried and convicted, so he determines in his own mind that they didn’t get adequate due-process. If this decision were to be upheld all convicts could be released because there is no separate use or definition of due-process in the Fifth Amendment for depriving a person of life or liberty. Since the same process was used and likely with even less vigor to incarcerate prisoners it is also obviously a violation of the prisoners Fifth amendment rights.

[Jay W]

With all the insanity emanating from the Federal judiciary these days, I keep hoping that some Federal Judge will rule the Federal Judiciary "unconstitutional." For example, who wouldn't mind the following headline:

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruled 'Unconstitutional'; Court to Be Disbanded; Laid-off Judges to be Hired as WalMart Greeters.

[goldstategop]

LMAO! Truthfully that is one decision I could happily live with!

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yes, of course, I guess that's why the US Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional for a period of four years.

Apparently, Marshall and the rest were just morons reading the constitution.

You also might want to keep that comment in mind as several death penalty cases are pending before the Supreme Court. Our 9 friends in black robes might just be "morons," too.

[ohioman]

Hell yes we do! Killers deserve to be executed. We are not the limp-wristed Eurowussies.

[Steve0113]

I think kidnapping is another one.

[jpl]

A judge declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional Monday, saying too many innocent people have been sentenced to death.

I'll bet he didn't name a single one.

[goldstategop]

Nope. Judge Rakoff is THE WEAKEST LINK!!!

[kidd]

I'm against the death penalty, but this will be overturned:

Prosecutors noted that the Supreme Court had already concluded that the due process safeguards of the Constitution do not guarantee perfect or infallible outcomes.

The death penalty is immoral, expensive and prone to irreversable errors, but it is not unconstitutional. This is an activist judge trying to change the law from the bench.

[Texbob]

They are one short on the death penalty, The judge that made this ruling that is 100% sure of being over turned. He is doing what all liberals do, cost the Federal Gov. a lot of money and for that there should be a death penalty.

[JimSEA]

I like your post. I was just sitting here racking my brain trying to remember a case in the last 20-30 years where a person was executed and then shown to be innocent. Can anyone here recall one?

[lelio]

(murder of Federal LEOs)
The person that was murdered was an informant working for the feds. Different? Perhaps not.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Another brilliant piece of liberalism from the People's Republic of New York.

[Poohbah]

It's probably in the statute.

If there was an argument that these guys were not eligible for the death penalty because the victim was a Fed LEO, it would have been made. Instead, the attorney used an incredibly loopy argument--basically, he threw some feces at the wall and--surprise, surprise--they stuck this time.

[4CJ]

I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but I can't remember one.

I do know that the majority always swear they were inncocent. The point is that a jury found them guilty. And if the death penalty is illegal because it might be applied to a innocent, than ALL penalties and fines are illegal.

[bvw]

Aye, but that would be against the modern theory of Judicial whimsy.