Death Penalty Ruled Unconstitutional

W Post ^

[wallcrawlr]

MONTPELIER, Vt. –– A federal judge declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional Tuesday in the second such ruling in less than three months.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions said the law does not adequately protect defendants' rights.

"If the death penalty is to be part of our system of justice, due process of law and the fair trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment require that standards and safeguards governing the kinds of evidence juries may consider must be rigorous, and constitutional rights and liberties scrupulously protected," he said.

[steveegg]

Only two people have been executed under the 1994 law, Tim McVeigh and Juan Garza. Which one is supposed to have been innocent?

Lessee; a lieberal judge and as the two defendants, a white guy who blew up a federal building on Klintoon's watch and a minority. Did you really need to ask the question <VBG>?

[steveegg]

What's especially galling is that it is blatantly OBVIOUS that the very constitution this bozo judge claims to be interpreting actually provides for the death penalty by mentioning it EXPLICITLY.

The Constitution also explicitly mentiones national defense as one of the roles of federal government, and that's ignored by the ilk's brethern.

This judge's finding that "innocent" people have been put to death operates as a justification against ANY kind of punishment, since under his apparent theory, only God can know for certain.

Unless, of course, you're an eeeeee-villll white man who blows up federal buildings or someone who dares exercise his free speech rights in front of abortion factories.

[Havisham]

Is he referring to abortion?

Pfff! They wouldn't even see the irony.

[Bad~Rodeo]

I can't post you without laughing, sorry, good question though....L~

[Ohioan]

I agree that it is important who controls the Senate. But note, this activist "Liberal," was confirmed by a Republican Senate. It is not just a matter of party. It is a matter of having Senators who will hang tough for principle, and who understand the Federal nature of our system. The "Liberals" have been blocking Conservative appointments since 1930, but we have never learned to block the "Liberal Activists."

This should be another wakeup call. But decades of frustration will make me wait to be shown that more than one or two Senators get the message.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

Are you willing to allow immigration?

Sure!
But like all immigrates, you have to denounce/sever all ties with your former state.
And pledge allegiance to your new state.

And you have to help us cast out the liberals in our big cities and return this great state to it's true color as an all RED ZONE state!
Oh, and one more thing, you have to MEAN IT, not just pay lip service to it.

That's all! :~D

[texson66]

Hey! That's a thought! If a state cant leave voluntarily (secede), maybe its ok for the feds to kick them out of the union (ostracize)??? How about the Eastern seaboard to start???!!!

[jpl]

He cited evidence indicating that innocent people have been put to death. Only two people have been executed under the 1994 law, Tim McVeigh and Juan Garza. Which one is supposed to have been innocent?

Good question. Of course, you could let him go back a lot further than 1994 and he still wouldn't actually be able to name anyone.

[concerned about politics]

So.....how does the value of human life effect Roe vs. Wade?
The murderers are innocent and allowed to live, the innocent are givin the death penalty.
This judge has got to be a Democrat. Murders and other felons vote Democrat, illegal or not.

[concerned about politics]

Roughly translated: There's going to be a lot of Vigilante's taking the law into their own hands, because justice will be the last thing accomplished if this takes precedence.

VERY TRUE. If someone killed my kid, my kids life would just be wasted, and the killer would get out in 6 mo. I see exactly what you mean.

[wallcrawlr]

Just draw a line around the Red states (remember the map?) and that'll take care of it.

[concerned about politics]

What provision does the honorable court make to secure VICTIMS' rights?

To a liberal, felons are victims of society. The dead are an asset to their population control agenda. Welcome to the liberal culture of death and the right to deathstyle choice.

[Almondjoy]

Why? Granted I agree more than anybody that there are some people that without hestiation should be put to death.. but I bet you would think a whole lot differently if your brother was murdered and then found innoncent due to DNA evidence or something else to that effect. It's a tougher issue than black and white if you are willing to open up your eyes.

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

wallcrawlr - Thank you!

texson66 - Yeah, what wallcrawlr said!

:~D

[concerned about politics]

but I bet you would think a whole lot differently if your brother was murdered and then found innoncent due to DNA evidence

DNA is newer technology. Now it can be done overnight. The truth will set them free, or sentence them to death. That's pretty easy to check today. Years ago it may have been different because there was no DNA check available.
There's also years to gt it done because of appeals.
If DNA says you're the killer, then what? Give you parole to reduce the prison population?

[Theodore R.]

It's easy for us, Texas Mom, to follow your advice and vote for John Cornyn for U.S. senator. But those people in IA -- it must be tough as nails to cast a ballot for that awful Dr. Ganske.

[Congressman Billybob]

When the rape/murder takes place on federal property, or involves a federal crime such as assassinating a federal official, the jurisdiction over the crime is federal, not state. Therefore there must be both state laws (the usual case) and federal laws (the unusual case) concerning the death penalty -- as the states and Congress separately decide.

So your "solution" of not having a federal death penalty law merely means that Congress could not determine that some crimes are so serious that the death penalty is appropriate. Neither the people nor the Constitution agree with you.

This ruling will be reversed on appeal. From my experience, it is occasionally possible for a US District judge to develop a wild hair and issue an illogical decision. Correcting those is part of the job description of the US Courts of Appeal. And if they get it wrong, that's what the US Supreme Court does.

The press get their panties in a wad over an isolated trial court decision like this. There are about 1,100 US District judges. Something ruled by one or two of them doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

Click for "I am almost out of ideas"

[concerned about politics]

What about a serial killer who confesses to all the crimes and laughs about it? Now, he knows he'll live anyway. Prisons have become more like vacation resports rather than institutions of punishment. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Thud]

Don't hold your breath on this decision surviving appellate review.

[Huck]

I understand your point. I was going to write that the Feds shouldn't be involved except in those few exceptions where it is appropriate(I thought of treason but you mentioned some others.)