Federal Death Penalty Ruled Unconstitutional

He's a district court judge, so it doesn't affect any other court. If the appeals court rules him correct, then it would be the rule for that appeals district. Unless the question gets presented to the Supreme Court, it doesn't affect Texas at all.

It could bring up some interesting questions with other terrorism suspects in New York though.

Federal Death Penalty cases are so rare anyway, this probably won't do anything unless it's upheld on appeal. This judge probably waited years for a case to come up.

 

Is the ruling even about due process?

I'm all for due process. But when a killer is found guilty of some heinous crime, there is no good reason why he shouldnt be executed.

 

There are times when people are found guilty of crimes without proper due process.

Hence, the appeals courts.

 

Try telling the families of the victims of Richard Speck that the death penalty sucks.

I'm sure they just loved seeing that video of him in prison having a good ole time and bragging about what a wonderful life he has.

I understand that sometimes innocent people get convicted for a crime that they didn't commit, but come on now.

When there is no doubt that someone is guilty and did horrible things like Speck, John Wayne Gacy, Dahmer, etc., to say that the death penalty would be bad to use on them is something that I have a hard time believing.

 

I think the framers of the constitution would be surprised to find they could not execute murderers, horse thieves, or treasonous soldiers. I wonder if there were any "life imprisionment" sentances in the former colonies. How long would one live in a colonial prison? I wonder how many prison beds there were, vis/a/vis the population. I would think that most early criminal cases were state and not federal, however. I'll have to do a little worky to see what comprised the majority of early federal cases.

There may be very good reasons to be against the death penalty, but it's just plain silly to use the constitution as the crutch for your arguement. It's not a question for the judiciary anyway, but properly belongs to the legislature. Judges who goof around with the constitution like this are the sort of people who need to define "is".

 

Max,

What do you do about monsters like Edmund Kemper, David Berkowitz, Dahmer, etc. who freely admit that they are guilty (Kemper begged for the electric chair)? These guys aren't victims of "circumstancial evidence".

I just don't see what good it does to give these animals life sentences when they have already admitted that they did terrible and horrible atrocities.

It is not like they are Dr. Richard Kimble of the Fugitive, here...

When there is no reasonable doubt such as a full confession from the suspect then I think the death penalty should be at the very least considered, and probably invoked.

 

The due process arguement is the right to make an appeal based on evidence that might come to light in the future. If evidence becomes available, and you are dead, you can't appeal, and therefore are not able to exercise your right to due process.

 

Personally I support the death penalty. It cuts down on the recidivism rate. More importantly, it provides closure to the families of the victims.

All of that being said...if we're gonna do it we need to use all available technology to ensure that we've really got the right guy. If somebody wants to try to clear themselves by utilizing DNA technology, then we should do it just to see what the results are. It's the only decent thing to do.

 

"Personally I support the death penalty. It cuts down on the recidivism rate. More importantly, it provides closure to the families of the victims."

Yeah that's nice, but what do you say to the families of the dozens of wrongly executed innocent people that have been killed due to our flawed justice system? Do they not matter? Our justice system is full of hypocrisy, especially when dealing with capital punishment.

 

Throw in the fact that our current capital punishment system is clearly racist (approx. 3 black persons are executed per white person), and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, it's surprising it hasn't been declared unconstitutional a long time ago.

 

Max,

Thanks for clarifying. I am really ignorant about legal stuff. Refman's post below yours (the one I'm quoting) pretty much sums up my feelings about this as well.

But I am curious about this...let's say that a state sentences a killer to the death penalty. Does that mean that every killer convicted in that state has to receive the death penalty?? Intuitively, I wouldn't think so, but I get the impression from your post that maybe it would.

Oh and Red Chocolate, Ref said "All of that being said...if we're gonna do it we need to use all available technology to ensure that we've really got the right guy. If somebody wants to try to clear themselves by utilizing DNA technology, then we should do it just to see what the results are. It's the only decent thing to do."

Now, that doesn't mean you are going to be 100% accurate, but I think it would virtually cut down the cases of innocent people dying for something they didn't do.

 

My problem with this arguement is that if capital punishment is overturned because people are racist, all punishments will be overturned because of racism as long there are juries.

I'm against Capital punishment because you can't say "oops, my bad" after you've given the wrong guy a deep sleep and I don't see anything more cruel than death.

 

"Oh and Red Chocolate, Ref said "All of that being said...if we're gonna do it we need to use all available technology to ensure that we've really got the right guy. If somebody wants to try to clear themselves by utilizing DNA technology, then we should do it just to see what the results are. It's the only decent thing to do."

Umm.. no sh*t it's the only decent thing to do, but it's too late for those dozens of people who died already. If they had been given life in prison, they would probably have been given a new trial and been found not guilty based on the evidence, and meanwhile the REAL murderers might have been found and put to justice.

But anyways, do you think that a 19 year old black kid from East St. Louis accused of shooting a 35 year old white woman is going to be given a fair defense? He will get a public attorney, and more often than not, he will receive a total bull**** defense, and get found guilty, even if there is a shadow of a doubt that he could be innocent. That's why our justice system is racist and full of big holes.

All this, "we need to use the best available technology-blah blah blah" jargon sounds all nice and dandy, but it doesn't happen in real life. That's why innocent people will continue to die, although probably at a lesser rate than it did in the 70's and 80's. Nice try, though.

 

Joe Joe,

You are missing the point about capital punishment being racist. It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the possibility of other convictions being overturned because of racism. It has to do with the fact that if 100 black men and 100 white men are convicted of the same type of murder, 75 black men will die for it and only 25 white men will die for it. That is what makes it racist.