bigpoppanils Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n070102b.html Citing “Undue Risk” of Executing Innocents, Court Declares Federal Death Penalty Unconstitutional Joint Statement of Diann Rust-Tierney, Director, ACLU Capital Punishment Project and Rachel King, ACLU Legislative CounselFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEMonday, July 1, 2002 NEW YORK-The American Civil Liberties Union today applauds U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff for declaring that the federal death penalty is unconstitutional because it creates “an undue risk of executing innocent people.” In his 28-page ruling, Judge Rakoff cited the high number of innocent people who have been released from death row, saying that “it is fully foreseeable that in enforcing the death penalty a meaningful number of people will be executed who otherwise would eventually be able to prove their innocence.” Given our country’s disturbing track record of sentencing innocent people to death, Judge Rakoff is right to have serious concerns about the application of the death penalty. Earlier this year, the Capital Punishment Project and a coalition of death penalty reform organizations marked an ominous milestone when Ray Krone became the 100th innocent person released from death row for a crime he did not commit. There are too many problems in too many states for anyone to be comfortable with the way the system is working. Judge Rakoff’s ruling comes at a time when the Department of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to be ignoring serious questions about fairness in the federal death penalty’s application and the strong evidence which suggests racial biases may be at work. Recent reports show that since taking office last year, Attorney General Ashcroft has reversed the recommendations of his agency’s own prosecutors at least 12 times – each time ordering them to seek execution in cases where they had recommended against doing so. This aggressive pursuit to execute is unconscionable when so many questions about fairness continue to exist. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 21 of the current 27 federal death row prisoners are minorities. A U.S. Department of Justice study completed in September 2000 found that 80 percent of all federal death penalty prosecutions involved people of color. The study also found that 40 percent of all death penalty prosecutions over a five-year period came from just five of the 94 federal jurisdictions. Now is the time to heed all of the warning signs and act. The ACLU supports the Federal Death Penalty Moratorium Act that has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI). The legislation would enact a moratorium on federal executions while creating a high-level comon to study the death penalty and propose solutions. The ACLU also urges Congress to pass the Innocence Protection Act, which has been introduced in the House and Senate and enjoys bi-partisan support. The bill would utilize DNA evidence and more competent legal counsel to seal a number of cracks in the current death penalty system. For more information on the bill, go to http://www.aclu.org/action/dpmoratorium107.html :clap::clap: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 finally...they are getting their act together about this. amazing how supposed third world countries do not have the death penalty, while the supposed superpower of the world still does.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmikebugout Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 u kno this is gonna go before the good old SC tho and im sure they will overturn this--Mike BuGouT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tastyt Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 Originally posted by sassa finally...they are getting their act together about this. amazing how supposed third world countries do not have the death penalty, while the supposed superpower of the world still does.... Yes... it's about goddamn time we became part of the civilized world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 Originally posted by djmikebugout u kno this is gonna go before the good old SC tho and im sure they will overturn this--Mike BuGouT yeah, that's what im afraid of But at least it's a step in the right direction. I wrote a paper on this, and also did research into the absurd amount of innocent people charged after the fact.Let's hope the Supreme Court opens their eyes to change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtyepic18 Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 Originally posted by sassa finally...they are getting their act together about this. amazing how supposed third world countries do not have the death penalty, while the supposed superpower of the world still does.... well, in most third world countries they just kill you without having an established "death penalty". anyway, i would probably prefer the death penality than living the rest of my life in a third world prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 This is great, but...That particular district is supposedly the most overturned in the country.Also note that this ruling applies to the federal death penalty, not state-sanctioned capital punishment (I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than myself can explain the difference -- it's just what I read). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaiiguestlis Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 i completely disagree... i personally think that the death penalty should be around... i personally think that whatever the cost of a execution it should be covered by having the person killed on pay per view so that all the people that were hurt by this person can have the satisfaction of knowing that the mother fucker is dead... weather there is a chance of him being inocent or not i still believe this.. i do not think that we "taxpayers" should be sitting here paying for these people to sit and rott and wait to die..... this is just my opinion.. weather you like it or not its just my opinion...like timothy mcvae or whatever his name was... all the people's lives that were affected by him... fuck that.. i think they should have strapped a bomb on him and not tell him when it was gonna blow up and just let him sit there an wait for it to blow!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 Originally posted by hawaiiguestlis i do not think that we "taxpayers" should be sitting here paying for these people to sit and rott and wait to die.....(God I hate these discussions...)The death penalty is even more expensive to taxpayers than life imprisonment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaiiguestlis Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 Originally posted by hoke (God I hate these discussions...)The death penalty is even more expensive to taxpayers than life imprisonment. EXACTLY... THATS WHY IT SHOULD BE ON PAY PER VIEW... AND TO BE HONEST... THINK BOUT THIS...$0.05 COST FOR A BULLET..1 MARKSMAN GUESSING 100 PER BULLET FIRED IM SURE THATS A DECENT RATE....SO TO SUM IT UP...100.05 TO KILL ONE PIECE OF SHITAND I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT OF THAT ITS COSTS MORE TO KILLEM THEN TO IMPRISON THEM... I HONESTLY DONT KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS EITHER WAY BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE REALITY IT SHOULD AND WOULD BE MUCH CHEAPER TO KILLEM IF WE DIDNT HAVE ASSHOLES SAYING THAT IT SHOULD BE HUMANE THE WAY THEY DIE... LET ME ASK YOU THIS.. HOW HUMANE WHERE THEY WHEN THEY KILLED SOMEONE OR WHATEVER THEY MAY HAVE DONE TO DESERVE THE DEATH PENALTY... NOT VERY!!!! SO WHY SHOULD WE BE HUMANE TO THEM....ARGUE IF YOU WANT.. AND I KNOW YOU WILL... SO BRING IT... THIS IS MY OPINION AND WILL STAND BY IT.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 You can stop shouting at me... I don't disagree that you're entitled to your opinion.The cost of the death penalty is not in the actual method execution, but in court fees leading up to the execution.I've done some research on this over the years... issues of "crual and unusual punishment" or innocence aside, the death penalty is neither cost-effective nor a deterrent to crime (in fact, the murder rate generally increases in states where the death penalty is introduced).At least you're being honest about your emotions, though -- a lot of people who favor the death penalty try to hide behind rational arguments, when in fact they're motivated by hatred and revenge. That seems to be your stance, and I know I can't argue with that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaiiguestlis Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 ILL AGREE ON THAT... it does cost alot through all the courts and everything... however... if we didnt have soo many loop holes and everything else then we wouldnt have that now would we...i dont know.. its just my opinion... weather im right or wrong.. its just an opinion.... i personally think our court system is a disgrace... someone can sue for burning themselves with coffee however a single mother in new york can get beaten by the father of the baby and yet the father doesnt lose child custody...another example... OJ... i mean cmon we dont even need to go there... and i wasnt trying to start any arguements.. i just simply stating my position on this.. sorry if anyone took offense to it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daemoncel Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 I totally agree with this.. the death penalty not only kills an innocent amount people, it also costa more and then life imprisonment. To kill them in a brutal way.. rather then humane way would make us just as bad as those third world countries that do it on a regular basis. We are a much better country than that.. Humane death penalty or not.. it's still not the right approachLife imprisonment... is better simply because if they're innocent.. it buys them time to prove it. If they're not, then they'll spend the rest of their lives paying for the crimes that have been commited.Rather then getting a quick way out with the death penalty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaiiguestlis Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 Originally posted by daemoncel I totally agree with this.. the death penalty not only kills an innocent amount people, it also costa more and then life imprisonment. To kill them in a brutal way.. rather then humane way would make us just as bad as those third world countries that do it on a regular basis. We are a much better country than that.. Humane death penalty or not.. it's still not the right approachLife imprisonment... is better simply because if they're innocent.. it buys them time to prove it. If they're not, then they'll spend the rest of their lives paying for the crimes that have been commited.Rather then getting a quick way out with the death penalty BUYS THEM TIME???!?!?!? exactly... wasting tax payers money while the guilty try and find a loop hole!!!! either way you look at it, it costs us money... and what is the difference how humane it is... an eye for an eye....remember the mother who drowned her children in her car... you telling me you wouldnt like to see her put in a car and drowned???? im betting you would get satisfaction knowing she had to go through what she put her children through.... like i said this is my opinion.. and i just bored at work and this topic gets me going.. not trying to take an attack on anyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted July 3 Report Share Posted July 3 Originally posted by hawaiiguestlis remember the mother who drowned her children in her car... you telling me you wouldnt like to see her put in a car and drowned???? im betting you would get satisfaction knowing she had to go through what she put her children through....Not in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazykid Posted July 4 Report Share Posted July 4 what about in a case where there is absolutely no doubt that a certain person is the killer. a case where there are witnesses and/or overwhelming evidence.To kill them in a brutal way.. rather then humane way would make us just as bad as those third world countries that do it on a regular basis. We are a much better country than that.. Humane death penalty or not.. it's still not the right approach cause a lot of murders happen in a "humane" way, so we owe them that in the way the death penalty is performed?im gonna disregard money in this case because i don't really know which one costs more or less, or if the death penalty is more expensive. however, if one person brutaly murders another and there is no doubt that he/she did it, i think they deserve to die, simply put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted July 4 Report Share Posted July 4 Can somebody please explain the concept "deserve to die"? I'm not being sarcastic... I really want to know what people think that means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaiiguestlis Posted July 4 Report Share Posted July 4 Nobody "deserves" to die... this including the inocent victoms... now that being said... if someone murders another... then by all means.. the same deserves to happen to that person... and eye for an eye sort of speak... just my opinion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beverage10 Posted July 4 Report Share Posted July 4 Oops wrong name again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhouse Posted July 4 Report Share Posted July 4 Rakoff is a jackass who is making decisions based on the fact that he wants to run for office in the near future, not on precedent or law. He pretty much said he was going to call it unconstitutional about a month ago. Not that I've seen the opinion, but I'm pretty sure that a District Court judge in Westchester didn't have enough precedent to overturn the US Supreme Court. I'm also against the death penalty (for monetary reasons), but what he did is not going about it the right way.And as Bugout said, when it goes to the Supreme Court (if the Court of Appeals doesn't squash it first), there's no way in hell the ruling stands with the conservative court we have now.BTW, this was the same judge who's presiding over the Enron case... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted July 4 Report Share Posted July 4 Dan, can you explain the difference between federal death penalty and state capital punishment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 i'm more worried about a legal system that allows the innocent to be imprisoned in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 Originally posted by thehacker i'm more worried about a legal system that allows the innocent to be imprisoned in the first place. Isn't that unavoidable?To err is human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.