U.S. District judge says he believes federal death penalty is unconstitutional

Associated Press / SFGate

[RCW2001]

Thursday, April 25, 2002
©2002 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/04/25/national1228EDT0594.DTL

(04-25) 09:28 PDT NEW YORK (AP) --

A judge said Thursday he was ready to declare the federal death penalty unconstitutional unless the government can quickly explain why so many condemned inmates turn out to be innocent.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff made the conclusion in an 11-page order in which he said he was about to toss out the death penalty eligibility of two men charged in a drug and murder conspiracy.

In doing so, he said, he would find the federal death penalty law unconstitutional on the grounds that innocent people were being sent to death row "with a frequency far greater than previously supposed."

He gave the government a final opportunity to present arguments on the subject before he issues a final ruling after May 31.

"If the court were compelled to decide the issue today, it would ... grant the defendants' motion to dismiss all death penalty aspects of this case on the ground that the federal death penalty statute is unconstitutional," Rakoff wrote.

©2002 Associated Press  

[Timmy]

Gee. Then wouldn't prison also be unconstitutional for murder and other crimes since so many "turn out to be innocent?"

[bvw]

Except for treason, war or piracy, I agree -- nothing in the Constitution grants the Federal government such power to try for capital crimes and to execute upon conviction.

[mrs9x]

Nice try buddy...but the Supreme Court has already declared the death penalty constitutional. Some applications of the death penalty can be declared unconstitutional, but the punishment itself is constitutional right now.

[Registered]

Probably appointed by Clinton in '96...

[Psycho_Bunny]

Don't be so mean....liberals are entirely incapable of extending logic beyond the opinion they've formed around the emotive aspect of an issue.

It's not their fault...it's a brain defect.

>:P

[Sgt_Schultze]

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I think the Constitution clearly presupposes the death penalty is applicable in no particular instance. The crimes would obviously have to be decided by Congress. While I oppose the death penalty because the government persists in writing more laws which criminalize otherwise normal behavior, it seems the founders thought to permit capital punishment.

[Dog Gone]

Well, this dimwit judge would find himself reversed on appeal pretty quickly.

[Dog Gone]

Appointed by Clinton in late 95, confirmed in 1996. Nice guess.

[Steelerfan]

Well, the death penalty was in use in the states prior to and after the ratification of the Constitution. To the extent you believe in the concept of original intent, that is pretty strong evidence that the framers did not intend the death penalty to be unconstitutional, at least when applied by the states.

[GunsareOK]

Judge Red S. Jakoff

[lds23]

Leftists always try to change human behavior by edict. The death penalty, under laws of evidence and procedure, already IS a sign of advanced civilization, as opposed to vigilante or feudal justice. You can't just legislate away centuries of human experience.

[Dianna]

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

"..nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;

Sounds like we can be deprived of life as long as there is due process.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

I think the Constitution clearly presupposes the death penalty is applicable in no particular instance ... it seems the founders thought to permit capital punishment.

Sorry, but your statements seem ambiguous...contradictory, in fact. Will you clarify what you meant to say?

Also, Amendment 5 says that no person's 'life or limb' may be jeopardized twice for the same crime, and that only with due process of law may the person's LIFE, liberty or property be taken. (Amendment 14 applies that same edict to the individual states.) Hence, I would have to believe that the Supreme Court (based on their interpretation of these two Amendments--Amendment 8 is the 'sticky' part, though, wherein it precludes 'cruel or unusual punishment') determined that, in fact, capital punishment is appropriate in particular circumstances.

[Dan Day]

Sorry, but your statements seem ambiguous...contradictory, in fact. Will you clarify what you meant to say?

You're reading his statement incorrectly. When he says "in no particular instance", he means "not limited to only certain types of crimes" (a position an earlier poster had held).

[Sgt_Schultze]

Alas my wording does seem cumbersome. I meant to say the Constitution recognizes the validity of the death penalty but provides no specific guidance for its application. It concludes that upon judgement under due process, a person may lose their life. I agree, the Constitution provides for capital punishment because it states clearly that it may be undertaken upon conclusion of the appropriate steps.

[stimulate]

The death penalty is not unconstitutional because of one interpretation by one Judge.If it were, no State could ever use the penalty of death. Think about it.How could any State violate the Federal Constitution without having its decision overturned?This is an activist judge who is trying to make law,not interpret it.It will not stand.

[DeaconBenjamin]

IMHO, I favor vigorous use of the death penalty by the states, while fed use should be rare (or limited to distinct circumstances where the state remedy is not available). With that exception, I strongly hold that the death penalty should not apply to any "federal" crimes not expressly stated in the Constitution.

[Bob J]

Live! Now on RadioFR!

6pm/9pm - TULL's TAWKIN: Special guest, Ralph Sarchie, an eighteen-year NYPD veteran, works out of the 46th Precinct in New York's South Bronx. But it is his other job that he calls "the Work" that I find interestering. Ralph, under the direction of the Catholic Church, investigates cases of demonic possession.

7pm/10pm - INS WHISTLEBLOWER RICK RAMIREZ GUEST ON SPECIAL EDITION "BANANA REPUBLICAN RADIO HOUR"

Click HERE to listen LIVE! while you FReep!

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

thank you ;-)