Posted on 07/06/2005 10:14:43 AM PDT by nypokerface
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in Congress have launched a new effort to speed up executions in the United States by limiting the ability of those sentenced to death to appeal to federal courts.
The "Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005," introduced into the House of Representatives by California Rep. Dan Lungren and in the Senate by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, would limit the ability of defendants facing the death sentence to have their cases reviewed by federal courts in what are known as habeas corpus appeals.
"You see delays in death penalty cases where they are allowed to drag on for 15 or even 25 years. Defense attorneys have come to believe the longer they delay, the better it is for their clients," Lungren said in an interview.
"We're trying to ensure that habeas corpus is not used as a reason for interminable delays and that defendants get one bite of the apple and not multiple bites," he said.
Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee considering the bill, conceded there was little chance of blocking it in the House.
"The House has been very supportive of anything that would strip the innocent of a fair hearing. This bill will ensure that more innocent people will be put to death," he said in a telephone interview.
Death penalty opponents say the law would strip the ability of federal courts to review most claims in capital cases.
"It seeks a radical cutting and slashing of our existing process of habeas corpus reviews of state convictions," University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt said last week in a hearing before the House subcommittee reviewing the legislation. "This new bill would effectively gut habeas corpus review where states have imposed a sentence of death."
Habeas corpus -- the phrase in Latin for "you have the body" -- has been a centerpiece of Anglo-American jurisprudence since it was first developed over 300 years ago in Britain. It gave a defendant the right to have their imprisonment reviewed by a court.
In U.S. death penalty cases, defense lawyers consider the right to have federal courts oversee state court decisions as a vital weapon in their armory.
POORLY FUNDED LAWYERS
"It is critical. Often, the defendant's original lawyers are so poorly funded and so overworked that they cannot do the basic research that the case requires. That's why the error level is so high in death penalty cases," said one California defense lawyer, who asked not to be named.
A study headed by Columbia University statistician and political scientist Andrew Gelman of all 5,826 death sentences imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 found that 68 per cent were reversed on appeal.
The most common reasons were "egregiously incompetent lawyering, prosecutorial misconduct or suppression of evidence, misintruction of jurors or biased judges or jurors," said the study published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
Federal courts examining habeas corpus appeals overturned 40 percent of the cases that had previously been upheld by state appeals courts -- a fact the authors called worrisome.
The number of death sentences handed down in the United States has fallen to around 150 a year from around 300 a year in the late 1990s, according to figures compiled by the Death Penalty Information Center.
Last year, there were 58 executions in the United States and there have been 27 so far this year. The average time a person spends on death row before execution is 11-12 years.
Ronald Eisenberg, a deputy district attorney from Philadelphia, said federal judges often threw out death sentences for frivolous reasons. In Pennsylvania, they have overturned 19 of 20 habeas corpus cases litigated in the past 10 years.
"Whether or not they actually reverse a conviction, federal habeas corpus courts drag litigation out for years of utterly unjustifiable delay, creating exorbitant costs for the state and endless pain for the victims," he told the House subcommittee last week.
I think Texas has an express lane.
I can hear the shrieks now: "This is a racist proposal by the Republicans!"
Nah, slow it down. You never know when some new evidence will come along absolving Mumia from Danny Faulkner's murder. What's the harm in him making a few commencement addresses anyways?
Owl_Eagle(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Also, already posted
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437683/posts
A shame the writer relegates the "pain of the victim" and their families to the last paragraph of the article, like an aftethought.
No, it's not the racial angle this time, it's the "culture of death" group that has stuck it's head out. Pretty laughable considering these same people are pro-abortion, pro-euthinasia, pro-population control. They want to kill everyone except the guilty.
Hey DUmmies, it's not a "culture of death" it's a respect for responsibility. You do the crime you do the time.
Idiots.
You want euthanasia to be legal because you don't want the burden of taking care of your elderly.
You want religion to be outlawed because your moral values cannot stand up to scrutiny.
You want Socialist Security so that you don't have to plan/earn/save for your retirement.
You want abortion to be free both in a legal sense and State funded because you believe you should be able to have sex anytime with anyone you choose without the complications of bearing children.
You want people who work to be taxed, so that people who choose not to work will still be provided housing and food.
In short, you need to grow up. This isn't the 1960's anymore.
Been trying to get you libs to be open and honest about their executions too, but it's illegal to show pictures of aborted babies or Terry Schiavo dehydrating to death.
He's a liberal troll, every post he's made is extremist liberal.
Go away.
Sounds allright to me.
Say bye-bye, troll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.