California Death Penalty declared unconstitutional

[CAJUNLAWYER]

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/d...20Chappell.pdf

Here's one that will cross y'alls eyes. Erich this is for you amigo!

I predict that the 9th circuit will uphold and the Supremes will reverse on a 5-4 vote (or maybe not....)
Keep the discussion civil! I don't want my thread locked down.

[wbraswell]

Wasn't it CA that got it declared unconstitutional before when they commuted the sentences of the Mansons and all their other BGs?

[Old 44 Guy]

I understand the 9th Court of appeals is the most over turned court in the land. Hope this remains correct.

[lonejacklarry]

"Nearly two decades later, Mr. Jones remains on California’s Death Row, awaiting his execution, but with complete uncertainty as to when, or even whether, it will ever come."

They complain when it is too fast and now they are complaining that it is too slow. As I recall, it is the defendants that prolong the process and not the state.

I'd give the defendant his "certainty" in a timely manner if it were up to me.

[italiansport]

Originally Posted by Dick Rumbaugh

I understand the 9th Court of appeals is the most over turned court in the land. Hope this remains correct.

The 9th is the most overturned that is correct. I also agree it will probably be reversed by the Supreme Court when it gets there.
Jim

[b_san]

Originally Posted by lonejacklarry

I give the defendant his "certainty" in a timely manner if it were up to me.

This, sounds like an easy fix to me.

[Rustyt1953]

Texas has an "Express Lane"'

[carpriver]

Let me understand this, there are people on death row waiting to be put to death by the state. Now there a law suit that show that it is taking to long to carry out the death sentence because the state can't afford to pay for a lawyer to handle the appeal process. The law suit wants what? to turn these man loose be cause waiting to be put to death in cruel and unusual punishment.

My suggestion give them 90 days to appeal the sentence then is off the death chamber.

The people and the state created the problem. Now the state want the feds to solve the problem.

These convicted person are in prison getting 3 hot's and a cot and 1 hour a day in the exercise yard and watching The Young and The Restless and reruns of Mayberry RFD. They get access to a law library. Sound to me like they are in a hurry to die, and the state needs to oblige them.

[Erich]

Saw that in the news - man, states spend a lot of money litigating the DP.

[PlaytheAces]

Voters in CA continually vote in the death penalty. The courts in CA continually throw the death penalty out. It's a mind boggling exercise that's been going on since the seventies.

[mojave30cal]

I think California is "unconstitutional".

[golfrj1]

Those who "Complain" should go to the front of the line!!

[2ndAmendmentNut]

As I understand it a death sentence in CA is pretty much a life sentence so who is even complaining?

[Mcwsky09]

Maybe they are afraid to be released, there are more and more people carrying concealed every day.

[Rastoff]

How can it be ruled "unconstitutional" in one state, but be OK in another?

[Erich]

Rastoff, the statute is unlikely to be the same from state to state. However, if the rationale followed by the appellate court somehow leads to a split in authority between federal circuits, it's likely the big SCt will get involved.

[brucev]

Re: OP. With respect, I just don't pay a whole lot of attention to anything that goes on in california. It never has been a place that attracts me. It's current and future prospects are such that I cannot imagine ever wanting to visit or live there.

[pharmer]

"Life in prison with the remote possibility of death." What's wrong with that? Do they want a bump in the odds of death? Lotsa billable hours. Joe

[rwsmith]

The Feds banned the death penalty back in the 70's and the states begged to have it reinstated and most states re-adopted it. Does that say anything?? Maybe the death penalty doesn't do any good. I'm absolutely sure that NOT having a death penalty doesn't do any good.

[Old TexMex]

"I'd take hangin' to burnin', and shootin' to both. But most bad men don't get the choice."
(somebody famous said that....)

[DR505]

Since Title 18 of the United States Code allows Federal violators to be put to death, I don't see how the Supremes could not overturn the whacky 9th. I was so glad to leave that Circuit's area. I would get an affidavit to swear out an arrest warrant for a subject located where I was, but who committed the crime somewhere back east. The investigator would send an affidavit that was a few pages in length. The US Attorney would have me beef it up considerably, usually three to four times the original length, just to satisfy the Courts in California. I guess probable cause varies from state to state.

[bushmaster1313]

If the Supreme Court rules that the death penalty is unconstitutional they will have killed the Constitution.

[LVSteve]

The Japanese are the best at turning the screw. They get no advanced warning of execution, but can sit on death row for decades, pretty much incommunicado for no good reason. Appeals are not readily available there as far as I can tell, so why the delay?

[red14]

Will it be retroactive?

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by red14

Will it be retroactive?

That one never gets old.

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

If the Supreme Court rules that the death penalty is unconstitutional they will have killed the Constitution.

Or the Court.

[Dennis The B]

Originally Posted by Rastoff

How can it be ruled "unconstitutional" in one state, but be OK in another?

Federal courts are in districts, and rulings may vary within each district, depending on the makeup of the district court justices. The 9th, for example, is one of the most liberal of circuit courts, while the 6th has historically been conservative.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules, as they did in the 1970's, that the death penalty was unconstitutional, then there will be variances as to laws interpreted by the various circuit courts. If two different circuit courts rule on the constitutionality of a particular aspect of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court will sometimes take the cases, so there will be uniformity of a Constitutional interpretation.

If there are variances of laws among states, that's generally the purview of the several states. Some states find the death penalty constitutional within their state constitutions, and some states do not. Unless a state runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal courts usually don't get involved.

[vito]

The only reason that an execution doesn't take place quickly is that our system is understandably concerned with a rush to judgment that could result in the execution of an innocent man. I don't understand, however, why appeals should continue ad infinitum after the original sentence of death has been made. It seems completely reasonable to me to have a time period, say 90 days, in which all issues of appeal must be submitted and adjudicated, then if the trial decision is not overturned the execution is done quickly.

I also don't understand the "problem" of finding a humane way to execute a criminal. I doubt that anyone would argue that a firing squad does not result in a quick and essentially painless death. Why mess around with electricity, drugs, or even a gas chamber when a simple firing squad would end the issue? And while some citizens might not want to personally have to participate in a firing squad, I can't imagine that any state would have difficulty in finding volunteers from among their police and correctional organizations.

And for those who claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent to further crime, it clearly is so for the executed person. And a life sentence or other prison term is obviously not deterring other murders so what's the harm with executing an already convicted capital criminal?

[Mcwsky09]

Originally Posted by vito

The only reason that an execution doesn't take place quickly is that our system is understandably concerned with a rush to judgment that could result in the execution of an innocent man. I don't understand, however, why appeals should continue ad infinitum after the original sentence of death has been made. It seems completely reasonable to me to have a time period, say 90 days, in which all issues of appeal must be submitted and adjudicated, then if the trial decision is not overturned the execution is done quickly.

I also don't understand the "problem" of finding a humane way to execute a criminal. I doubt that anyone would argue that a firing squad does not result in a quick and essentially painless death. Why mess around with electricity, drugs, or even a gas chamber when a simple firing squad would end the issue? And while some citizens might not want to personally have to participate in a firing squad, I can't imagine that any state would have difficulty in finding volunteers from among their police and correctional organizations.

And for those who claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent to further crime, it clearly is so for the executed person. And a life sentence or other prison term is obviously not deterring other murders so what's the harm with executing an already convicted capital criminal?

I agree that there should be concern for the falsely accused - and while there have been plenty of cases where someone convicted of a crime was later found guilty - there are certainly cases where there is no doubt whatsoever that the accused is in fact guilty and in those cases there should be no delay in carrying out the sentence.

The existing of a death penalty is meaningless if there is no realistic expectation that it will ever be used.

There was a case where a guy was guilty of kidnapping, rape, ad murder, pleaded guilty and said that he didn't even want a trial or life in prison because if he ever got out he would do it again. Some jackhole lawyer who was unrelated to the case filed a brief claiming that the guy's own lawyer (probably a public defender) was not acting in his client's best interest by entering a guilty plea. The guy got out on bond while waiting for trial and surprise, surprise, surprise, while he was out he did it again, the end of the story as I heard it the guy is still in prison on death row. There is no way you could ever convince the family of the second victim that the death penalty, applied correctly, would not have been a benefit to society and a deterrent to the guy who killed their loved one.

[lonejacklarry]

Originally Posted by vito

....And while some citizens might not want to personally have to participate in a firing squad, I can't imagine that any state would have difficulty in finding volunteers from among their police and correctional organizations.

That would be a lot more difficult than you think. It is why a condemned person down range has been blindfolded. It is not for his benefit but for the members of the squad that have to look into a person's eyes before firing. The average civilized person cannot do it.

If you ever have the misfortune to do it, you will understand. Ask the average combat soldier.

[Rastoff]

Originally Posted by Mcwsky09

The existing of a death penalty is meaningless if there is no realistic expectation that it will ever be used.

This is so true. In today's system, a prisoner is more likely to be killed in prison by other inmates than die when placed on death row. This is probably why death row inmates are not allowed to mingle with other prisoners.

I'm not a fan of capital punishment. It is something that should be reserved for those cases that are 100% clear that the accused is guilty. Those who confess, those who are caught on clear video and have corroborating evidence including witnesses. Even so, if they proclaim innocence, a life sentence is enough.

For those cases where it is 100% proven, the guilty should be taken out back (metaphorically) and executed that same day.

[keith44spl]

As they say, "Get yur ticket...Ride the ride!"




"Ride the Lightin"




.

Jest don't wet the sponge all that much


.

.