[chron] Judge grants motion declaring death penalty unconstitutional

No, I think that his counsel should object/file a motion in opposition (as appropriate) to the procedural issues as they arise (which the counsel apparently did here). The judge should rule on the issues according to established law (which he did not do, to my understanding).

 

So you are saying that if the death penalty were being unconstitutionally applied in Texas, the judge should fix it or the legislature should fix it?

 

I am not sure I understand the question. The judge should apply the law to the facts in the case (or instruct the jury in how to do so). The legislature should determine to what crimes (if any) the death penalty should be applied, and the standards for its application. A trial judge has no business determining for himself that the standards established by higher courts are unconstitutional. A trial judge could not (for example) enjoin a corporation from running an advocacy ad (to use a recent case), deciding that corporate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

 

I'm asking you a very simple question. I'm not sure why you are obfuscating so much.

If the death penalty were being unconstitutionally applied in Texas, shoudl that be rectified by a judge or a legislature?

The answer is pretty obvious - you're only making yourself look silly.

 

It doesn't seem like a simple question to me. See my answer above. Trial judges do not correct systemic problems (the death penalty being unconstitutionally applied throughout Texas), but do handle individual issues (the death penalty being unconstitutionally applied in an individual case because of prosecutorial misconduct). The ambiguity of your question is why I asked for clarification or rephrasing.

In this particular case, having read the motion that was granted, I don't think the judge acted properly. The attorney argued that it would be unconstitutional for an innocent man to be executed, and that the defendant is presumed innocent.

The presumption of innocence ends with the trial, so that whole point was meaningless. The guilt or innocence of the defendant is determined by the jury, and if he was found not guilty, then he would not be subject to execution.

The entire premise of the motion was that juries are not infallible, and that it is unconstitutional to deprive someone of life if he might be innocent (presumably he means he has not received due process if he is found guilty though he is factually innocent). Unfortunately, it is also unconstitutional to deprive someone of liberty without due process, so the same motion should succeed if they filed it in any felony or misdemeanor case. It is also unconstitutional to deprive someone of property without due process, so the same motion should prevail even in citation cases or civil cases. The idea that the prescribed punishment cannot be carried out because the jury may have been wrong cannot be reconciled with a criminal justice system that invokes punishment.

 

Your question is not specific enough. If a statute, any statute not just the death penalty, is being unconstitutionally applied in Texas, a judge is who makes that determination. However, when there is well settled case law from the appellate courts and the district court judge just chooses to ignore it, that's a problem. In this case, the judge chose to ignore binding case law in making his determination. Appellate courts are generally the courts that determine whether or not a statute is unconstitutional. It rarely happens at the district court level, but when it does, it certainly shouldn't happen in the face of binding appellate opinions that are on point.

But, I suppose if you're speaking in generic terms, not legislatures don't make determination on constitutional issues. But, that argument is a bit of a red herring.

 

It was specific enough for you to be able to give the correct answer.

 

I am opposed to the death penalty not out sympathy or that is too harsh, because I believe its too easy. The only thing in life worth living for is hope, no matter how bad of situation you are in the percent possibility that it could change, life in bars with no parole is worse than death because its just a no hope hell hole situation that constantly reminds and tortures you of what you did wrong. I have read articles and interviews with people with life in prison who say they would wish to be put out of their misery because they are not living in here anyways. I think thats the worst kind of punishment, life in bars, no parole, its just torture

 

You raise some good points but in a situation like this though couldn't the judge decide that the death penalty is unconstitutional based on the judge's understanding of due process?

 

If a judge thinks a jury trial is not due process, then he probably should not be a judge (especially if he is the one presiding over the trial).

 

One little problem here......judges don't have this power, they can only enforce the law; not make it. Although I must say there are plenty of judges who go oligarchy from the bench...

Only the supreme court has the power to determine the constitionality of laws; and that is really there only job......well until FDR stacked the court and corrupted the whole system; but thats a whole other topic for discussion...