Patriot Act redefines Death Penalty Sentencing

[MrBishop]

Wednesday, November 2, 2005; Page A20



THE USA PATRIOT Act is intended to give the government the authority it needs to prevent terrorism. But the House has larded its version of the bill reauthorizing some of those powers with extraneous provisions that would significantly reshape the federal death penalty -- and not just in terrorism cases. Whatever else happens in the House-Senate conference committee that will meet soon to reconcile differing versions of the bill, these provisions need to be removed.

The most troubling is a little-noticed section that would dramatically alter capital sentencing proceedings. Currently a jury has to be unanimous to impose death: one dissenter and the punishment defaults to life in prison. The bill would change that by allowing a new jury to be empaneled whenever a sentencing jury cannot make a unanimous decision one way or the other. This would effectively give prosecutors a do-over in many of the cases in which they fail to achieve a death sentence the first time around -- or the second time or the third. We oppose capital punishment, but even its supporters should agree that a sentence so severe and irreversible should be meted out only when the arguments for it are overpowering. When a qualified juror is not persuaded, prosecutors should not get another chance.,'THE USA PATRIOT Act is intended to give the government the authority it needs to prevent terrorism. But the House has larded its version of the bill reauthorizing some of those powers with extraneous provisions that would significantly reshape the federal death penalty -- and not just in terrorism...','') ;document.write( technorati.getDisplaySidebar() );Another House proposal would permit a death sentence in terrorism cases even when the defendant did not intend to kill. Under current law, capital sentences require not merely a homicide but evidence of intent either to kill or to seriously injure someone, except in cases involving espionage and treason. The new language would group terrorism crimes in with those espionage and treason cases, where intent to kill is not necessary. It would become easier to execute low-level conspirators who raised money or aided a plot in some way but who did not mean for their actions to cause death or injury. Depending on how the courts interpret this change, it could dramatically expand the federal death penalty.

On the substantive matters at the bill's core, the Senate's bill is preferable to the House's in important respects -- giving the government the authorities it needs while building in better checks and balances than exist now. But to get the right answer on the Patriot Act, it is critical that controversial, unrelated legislation be considered separately. On their own, such radical changes in the federal death penalty would have trouble getting through Congress. They shouldn't be slipped through either.

Washington Post

 

[Gato_Solo]

Every sentence for a violent crime should be a death sentence. You get three appeals, which must be used within 6 years, and then, if the conviction stands, the sentence is carried out within 12 hours. Automatic. If it turns out that there was evidence tampering, then the people who handled the evidence get the same sentence as the person convicted.

 

[freako104]

Agreed with the first part Gato but with all the goddamn appeals, they take far too long. I say one to two appeals. If evidence comes after the appeals but before death penalty is executed, then re hear case.

 

[The Other One]

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/13000365.htm

The bill also triples the number of terrorism-related crimes eligible for the death penalty, adding, among others, the material support law that has been the core of the government’s legal strategy against terrorism.

Under the proposals, 41 new crimes would be added to the 20 terrorism-related offenses now eligible for the federal death penalty. Prosecutors would also find it easier to impose a death sentence in cases in which the defendant did not have the intent to kill.

Material support for terrorism=72 virgins

 

[unclehobart]

Every sentence for a violent crime should be a death sentence. You get three appeals, which must be used within 6 years, and then, if the conviction stands, the sentence is carried out within 12 hours. Automatic. If it turns out that there was evidence tampering, then the people who handled the evidence get the same sentence as the person convicted.

I kinda like the Saudi method where you get beheaded about 5 minutes after your conviction.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I kinda like the Saudi method where you get beheaded about 5 minutes after your conviction.

Got to be sure before you do the deed. That's why they get 3 chances...and six years...to make sure they get it right.

 

[Bobby Hogg]

You can never be sure, unfortunately, which is my disagreement with the death penalty. I'm all for the execution of rapists and certain violent criminals, but unfortunately the punishment of innocent people by accident or by design happens far too often to justify the use of capital punishment.

Even one wrongful execution is too many, it defeats the purpose.

 

[MrBishop]

Even one wrongful execution is too many, it defeats the purpose.

There are two purposes for the death penalty as I see it.
1) Scare potential rapists, violent offenders etc... Doesn't always work because most rapists and violent offenders don't think that they'll ever get caught, convicted or put on the execution list.
2) Clean up the gene-pool. Well, this I can see as a good enough reason for reinstating the death penalty. Lets get rid of some paedophiles, rapists and mass-murderers. Although there will always be some wheat thrown out with the chaff (everybody's innocent in jail)...the appeals should help out.

What burns me is adding non-violent and 'related to terrorism' criminals to the roll of those who can face the death penalty. People who raise funds knowingly or not, which go towards supporting terrorist groups...white-collar criminals could face the death penalty.

 

[freako104]

Your two purposes are correct though add one more


It prevents the individual from committing further crimes as they are now dead

 

[MrBishop]

Your two purposes are correct though add one more


It prevents the individual from committing further crimes as they are now dead

That's what I actually meant...as opposed to saying that rapists and murderers beget rapists and murderers.

Basically...get them off the streets..permanent-like.

 

[BeardofPants]

Problem is... in the states that have the death penalty, the crime rate is generally higher than those without the death penalty.

Deterence?, and if that's too biased, do a google search on "death penality higher crime rate".

 

[Winky]

ded terrorists don't blew peeples up

simple as that i'd say

the only good terrorist
is a ded terrorist

 

[unclehobart]

Penalties for crimes aren't for deterring other possible offenders. Penalties are for deterring the criminal that comitted the act in question. If a criminal is executed or left in a dank pit forever, the odds are good that he will never commit another.

 

[Gonz]

The purpose of the bicameral legislature is to debate law. Put stuff in, take stuff out, re-word, edit. That's the purpose of legislative debate. What's the problem?

 

[freako104]

Penalties for crimes aren't for deterring other possible offenders. Penalties are for deterring the criminal that comitted the act in question. If a criminal is executed or left in a dank pit forever, the odds are good that he will never commit another.

Which is the major argument I use. It is a form of deterrence; specific deterrence.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Penalties for crimes aren't for deterring other possible offenders. Penalties are for deterring the criminal that comitted the act in question. If a criminal is executed or left in a dank pit forever, the odds are good that he will never commit another.

They will if the executions are made public...

We now interrupt this program for an important act of deterrance...

*ZAP*...*Chop*...whatever.

We now return you to you regularly scheduled program.

Call it barbaric, if you must, but no lethal injections, and no gas. People will get the message.