posted
Well, I'm no lawyer, but I'll try to channel Dagonee. The article doesn't actually say what Congress is contemplating; it says what 'death penalty opponents' think it is going to do. Without a bit more information on the details of the bill, I think it's going to be pretty tough to have any kind of meaningful discussion. Who knows, maybe it imposes quite reasonable time limits, or something?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one person said it best, that the Federal Judges were making too much out of too little. In other words, they weren't following the laws; but playing anti-death scentence advocates. After all, there has to be a reason there have been so many overturnings in Federal Court. Unless, of course, you think that 40 percent of lower courts and juries are incompetant.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have always questioned having juries. One: they are NOT trained in the law. Two: I am sorry, but I can't think of any juries that were peers. To me these two things scream bad law rather than fair trial.
Sadly, when the juries find guilty verdicts than the accused can appeal almost forever. However, when juries find someone "innocent" the victims or prosecutors have no recourses. I mean, has anyone ever heard of appealing an innocent verdict?
If the Federal Judges are so good at what they do, why don't they skip the lower courts and go directly to Federal ones? Perhaps all murder or death penalty cases should go directly to Federal Courts to help expidite the cases and save money?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Double jeopardy, right? But in any case, I think it's a good principle that it's better for a thousand guilty to go free, than one innocent be convicted.
Edit : Now I think about it, at least in Norway the prosecution will sometimes appeal a case. Don't know if you can do that in the US.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KofM, that is what that one family in Idaho said I believe. (sarcasm alert for the uninformed)
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit lost here, Idaho? Family? Eh, what?
On third thoughts about the prosecution appealing, I think it's usually done for the sentencing rather than the guilty/innocent bit. So they'll appeal if a man was found guilty but given a slap on the wrist, but they won't appeal if he was found innocent. I think. This is my impression from newspaper reading, from a while ago, and from casual interest.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional: several reasons; jurisdiction, for one.
Also, habeas corpus appeals are not about judging the correctness of the verdict, but the correctness of the trial. That is, habeas corpus is fundamentally about the right to a fair trial (you know, the one guaranteed by our constitution?).
So incompetent defense lawyers, prosecutors withholding evidence, and juries being instructed incorrectly about what the standards of the law are all result in successful habeas corpus appeals.
Note in particular that this is for death penalty cases, with which society has the greatest responsibility to be as discriminating as possible. (Question for the legal types: does a habeas corpus appeal ditch the conviction entirely, or does it sometimes just make it life in prison or the like? I suppose it might depend on the grounds the habeas corpus appeal was brought).
I don't really care all that much if 40% is a lot higher than the number of actual wrongly tried people. All I care about is being reasonably certain that it is higher, because the alternative is far worse.
And, to make the point personal: if someone you knew's court appointed attorney was incompetent, would you be okay with her being put to death based on his defense?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC, Occasional, the guy had been convicted and served a court ordered sentence twice. Given both the judge and jury and prosecutors likely had considerable say in what those sentences were, and not any federal judges, seems you're arguing for those people making the wrong decisions (assuming the law allowed for greater sentences), which would support federal courts having a good amount of oversight in certain aspects (after all, if they can be incompetent in one direction, they can be incompetent in the other).
I'm not saying I'd agree necessarily with the initial position, but that would certainly be a logical conclusion from it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, habeas corpus appeals are not about judging the correctness of the verdict, but the correctness of the trial.
You may be able to say that; but on a practical basis it ends up about both.
Hey, I am not saying that lower courts and juries are better. If you read what I have said (and not prejudiced ideas of what you think I would say) you will realize I am no fan of lower courts. However, I don't think that higher courts are any better. In fact, I think higher courts are worse (and saying that doesn't make the lower ones any better) because they often use their power for political statements rather than oversight.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To put it this way. The American Court system needs more than a few new rules (like what started the thead), but a complete overhaul from the lowest juries to the Supreme Court.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
So, I wonder which it is. 40% or 68%. Can someone interpret that for me?
I think it's dreadful that they want to do this. Why don't they fix the real problem? The fact that so many cases are overturned because of "egregiously incompetent lawyering, prosecutorial misconduct or suppression of evidence, misintruction of jurors or biased judges or jurors," makes it seem that rather than suspending habeas corpus, they ought to figure out a way to stop those problems so there won't be a need for the appeals in the first place.
Maybe that's just me though.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow* Occasional, for you to complain that juries are not trained in law and then make a rhetorical question about innocent verdicts not being appealed... it just boggles my mind.
Also, if only those trained in law can serve on "juries" then the whole process becomes professional lawyering, which would be rather frightening for me. Or do you think the constitution's promise of a trial by a jury of our peers to scream bad law as well?
I am beginning to understnad the fear of neo-cons.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, I wonder which it is. 40% or 68%. Can someone interpret that for me?
It could be both since the 40% was the number reversed in Federal courts. The additional 28% might be overturned in state appeals courts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
