Another analysis pointing out what a train wreck our legal justice system has become. On July 26, the Washington Post published yet another one, on the staggering amount of wrongful convictions in the U.S. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-So-the-innocent/2015.... If we keep pulling back the rock, maybe we'll finally get reforms. The things found crawling around under there all have one thing in common: they're all lawyers.
1
As it stands now Death Row is largely a farce of a "punishment", the great white shark with rubber teeth. Take CA for example. In fear of wrongly executing the few that are innocent the 144 child murderers, 44 cop killers, and 550 other butchers all languish in relative comfort on "death row" until they die of natural causes from old age. Some serving multiple life sentences for murder in Pelican Bay STILL run criminal enterprises from their cells. It is not only insulting to the victims families, but astronomically expensive when adding up the incarceration, legal, and psychological costs. IMHO, as a nation we need to have a special appeals court that does nothing but death row cases and quickly so we can execute the deserving, free the innocent, spare the victims any further insult, and save billions that many of us are loathe to spend on guilty killers who slaughter kids, teens, and innocents. And some call me cruel for seeking what used to be definitely defined as Justice.
We should keep in mind that the right of federal habeas review of state court convictions is not found in the Constitution. It was the result of a Reconstruction era statute that conferred jurisdiction on the federal courts to review state court convictions, primarily those from the South. Congress could, if it desired, eliminate federal court jurisdiction over these cases.
1
Are these five Catholic men permitted to take communion in their respective churches? If so, I think Pope Francis would be well within the scope of his powers to order that they not be permitted to take communion and that any priest who defies his edict should be defrocked. Perhaps they should be excommunicated altogether so that no more may they pretend to speak for the church.
Some Catholics these men turn out to be. They would deny a dying woman a medical abortion to save her life out of reverence for a fetal life that will never be with nary a thought for the husband and children she leaves behind but yet will take the lives of people who are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of without thinking twice.
I'm baffled.
Some Catholics these men turn out to be. They would deny a dying woman a medical abortion to save her life out of reverence for a fetal life that will never be with nary a thought for the husband and children she leaves behind but yet will take the lives of people who are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of without thinking twice.
I'm baffled.
2
The standards for relief set forth in the AEDPA are difficult to meet precisely because they are supposed to be. By the time a prisoner is pursuing federal habeas relief, he already has (1) either pled or been convicted in state court, (2) lost on direct appeal in state court, (3) likely sought state habeas relief, and (4) one way or another presented his issues to the highest court in his state. It is at that point that he may come to federal court. I am an attorney who specializes in this area of the law and I can tell you that while there may be a case or two where guilt is in doubt, after all the corrective process to which the inmate has had access, what is left to assert as a federal claim is usually pretty frivolous and typically based upon the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial attorney. The AEDPA is not a perfect law but it is pretty good at doing what it is intended to do.
1
Well, I don't know where your practice is, but maybe your trial and appellate judges aren't elected, as they are where I practice. Your parsing of how AEDPA affects the legal system is a little bit idealistic. Ludicrous rationales employed by state reviewing courts in affirming convictions (elected appellate judges examining the rulings of elected trial court judges) regularly get the hands-off treatment in federal courts due to the virtually unlimited deference that AEDPA affords state court rulings. Yes, AEDPA is pretty good at doing what it is intended to do, we just have a different idea of both its intent, and what has resulted from its passage.
2
Indeed, the law does what it was meant to do perfectly well, bind the hands of federal judges with iron shackles. I can tell you from my own practice that conservative states don't guarantee the process you are due under the Constitution. Going through the state courts is often a perfunctory process with rubber stanping of horrible trials. So frankly, the idea that the federal courts can't actually review cases meaningfully is a huge problem.
3
Justice Scalia: "No, we might as well understand each other, Monsieur Madeliene. I administer the law - good, bad, or indifferent - it's no business of mine, but the law to the letter! "
2
I remember one well-known case when New Jersey a decade or so ago was debating whether to outlaw its rusty old death penalty, which had not been used since 1962.... when Kennedy was president.
A case was cited in which a man on the PA side of the Delaware River crossed into NJ to kidnap, ransom, and murder a homeowner. He did so, he freely admitted, because PA has an active death penalty, while NJ's had been moribund for decades. And he was right.
Coincidentally, a graduate of a high school I worked in (Pleasantville, NJ) was 1 of the 8 men on death row in Trenton then. He'd home-invaded and beat to death an old white man in my nearby hometown, at age 20 or so (he's an African-American.) He was convicted by the impression his sneaker made on the man's forehead. I was hoping he'd get executed, rather than costing $$$ for "3 hots and a cot" in prison for decades.
When I last checked, spineless California had close to 800 [sic] murderers and rapists on death row - or "death wing" - at San Quentin. While libraries and community centers within sight of the prison remain partly closed for "lack of funds." A broke, blue, Democrat state, no doubt.
A case was cited in which a man on the PA side of the Delaware River crossed into NJ to kidnap, ransom, and murder a homeowner. He did so, he freely admitted, because PA has an active death penalty, while NJ's had been moribund for decades. And he was right.
Coincidentally, a graduate of a high school I worked in (Pleasantville, NJ) was 1 of the 8 men on death row in Trenton then. He'd home-invaded and beat to death an old white man in my nearby hometown, at age 20 or so (he's an African-American.) He was convicted by the impression his sneaker made on the man's forehead. I was hoping he'd get executed, rather than costing $$$ for "3 hots and a cot" in prison for decades.
When I last checked, spineless California had close to 800 [sic] murderers and rapists on death row - or "death wing" - at San Quentin. While libraries and community centers within sight of the prison remain partly closed for "lack of funds." A broke, blue, Democrat state, no doubt.
1
Charles - my guess is you're not familiar with the various studies which show that nationally, murder rates are lower in states that don’t use the death penalty than in those with a death penalty statute — and have been consistently so for the past twenty years.
My guess is you're also not familiar with the 2008 police chiefs survey which ranked the death penalty at the bottom of a list of effective crime fighting tools. They instead asserted that increased law enforcement resources were the most important tool for reducing violent crime.
Red-state poster-boy Scott Walker has proved the police chiefs' point: Wisconsin has seen a jump in violent crime after he slashed the public security budget.
My guess is you're also not familiar with the 2008 police chiefs survey which ranked the death penalty at the bottom of a list of effective crime fighting tools. They instead asserted that increased law enforcement resources were the most important tool for reducing violent crime.
Red-state poster-boy Scott Walker has proved the police chiefs' point: Wisconsin has seen a jump in violent crime after he slashed the public security budget.
5
One of the cruelest, really almost evil, aspects of ADEPA is the one year time limit to file a habeas petition. This effectively bars almost all incarcerated people from going back to court with new information, with evidence of malfeasance on part of prosecutors, really for any reason. Do you (readers) know what legal advice prisoners have access to? Nearly none. Sure, if they speak English, they can request case law from Lexis or West Law (if the prison has that at all), but so what? These kinds of searches are mostly meaningless except to experts. For nearly all prisoners, except for the pro forma appeal upon conviction, they are on their own. We read about the lucky few (very few) whose situation gets some attention but they are less than 1%. The rest can languish or just die. If you think this is wrong and don't have access to Lexis or WestLaw, just try Google Scholar (case law): say you are convicted of murder but you know the witnesses against you lied. See if you can figure out what case law governs your situation. (Hint: you won't be able to.) If you don't read English; aren't smart or educated, have few or no resources, you are totally out of luck.
The more I read about our judicial system the more I know it is cruel, callous and useless.
The more I read about our judicial system the more I know it is cruel, callous and useless.
10
This country really serves the interests of the rich, whether we're white or black. If
we're rich we can hire the legal "dancers" who know how to work the system, know how
to tell you how to legally avoid being taxed, and you can contribute lots of $$ to pacs
which will get your guys elected to skew the laws in your favor, and otherwise maneuver
the system. If not - then you had better just be very lucky. It's like the field of medicine -
just don't get sick. And for the law - just don't need a lawyer. And if you're black - chances
are the system will work totally against you - even if you're innocent. If you're convicted you
will often get a longer prison sentence for a crime you would get a shorter sentence for if you
were white, etc. Sad - but true.
we're rich we can hire the legal "dancers" who know how to work the system, know how
to tell you how to legally avoid being taxed, and you can contribute lots of $$ to pacs
which will get your guys elected to skew the laws in your favor, and otherwise maneuver
the system. If not - then you had better just be very lucky. It's like the field of medicine -
just don't get sick. And for the law - just don't need a lawyer. And if you're black - chances
are the system will work totally against you - even if you're innocent. If you're convicted you
will often get a longer prison sentence for a crime you would get a shorter sentence for if you
were white, etc. Sad - but true.
5
The Court's right wing fails to grasp the primary concept of justice and places form over substance. Procedural rules are intended to provide an orderly process rather than being the be all and end all of the court system. Justice means getting the correct result. Innocent is innocent and should prevail over all else regardless of procedural rules.
9
On second thought, maybe corporations are persons in the same way Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are persons if we are judging by whether they experience sympathy, empathy or common sense.
6
What's the big surprise? This SCOTUS has been all about “agenda-driven judicial policy-making” for many years.
9
Once upon a time it was said that it is 'better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict one innocent man'. This equation has been reversed, particularly in my state of Texas. Texans do ot seem bothered that Cam Whillingham was certianly innocent of arson when he was executed for what has been determined was not a crime at all. This attitude seems to be 'one must break some eggs to make an omelet. We have gone from 'innocent till proven guilty' to the Napoleonic guilty till proven innocent.
13
Was Texas ever concerned with "innocent until proven guilty"? I believe that
by definition a slave holding state was in favor of rule by brute force. This
would apply to white who didn't go along with the party line.
by definition a slave holding state was in favor of rule by brute force. This
would apply to white who didn't go along with the party line.
3
"But the decision prompted a dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, that includes this protest: “This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Then it is certainly high time that it did.
"Justices" Scalia's and Thomas' ignorance, callousness, and sheer blindness is legendary. Their own words are the best evidence for why they should never have been allowed to serve on the Supreme Court. They may have no problem with executing the "actually" innocent, but every reasonable and rational person can understand why it should never be allowed.
That our "justice" system allows for and turns away from the execution of the innocent is the best reasoning for ending capital punishment. It is the v
Then it is certainly high time that it did.
"Justices" Scalia's and Thomas' ignorance, callousness, and sheer blindness is legendary. Their own words are the best evidence for why they should never have been allowed to serve on the Supreme Court. They may have no problem with executing the "actually" innocent, but every reasonable and rational person can understand why it should never be allowed.
That our "justice" system allows for and turns away from the execution of the innocent is the best reasoning for ending capital punishment. It is the v
20
It is absolutely appalling we in this country are stuck with a Fascist like Scalia, who if you read his opinions is probably mentally ill, sending people off to die and thinking it doesn't matter if they are innocent. Of course, Thomas is a non entity in ths and does whatever Scalia tells him to do. Mr Scalia is indeed a murderer and will have quite a bit to answer for when he finally meets his maker and his many victims will be waiting for him down below where he belongs.
24
I think we should do everything possible to make the death penalty safe. Maybe it means repealing this law. Maybe it means creating better laws. But, we must keep the death penalty. I think. Some people are too evil and deserve it. I think one should get the death penalty if they are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, if there is any question that they could be innocent, even a little, maybe they should just get life without parole.
3
Yes, but the defendant who appears to be "guilty without a shadow of a doubt" may be
exonerated by some scientific advance and demonstrated to be innocent at a later
date. Eye witness accounts have proven to be unreliable years later, but seemed
totally plausible at the time. Witnesses have recanted testimony saying that they
were misinformed, they misunderstood or they were lying for one reason or another.
Being guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not iron clad proof of innocence.
exonerated by some scientific advance and demonstrated to be innocent at a later
date. Eye witness accounts have proven to be unreliable years later, but seemed
totally plausible at the time. Witnesses have recanted testimony saying that they
were misinformed, they misunderstood or they were lying for one reason or another.
Being guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not iron clad proof of innocence.
9
Every mistaken death penalty verdict was entered by jurors who were certain that they were right. I have prosecuted and defended murder cases. I am pretty sure there is no standard that can be employed that will provide the certainty you desire. In general, the only certainty is that once the government kills a person, it's too late to fix mistakes.
12
I would like to think that in America we have moved beyond the unenlightened "some are evil and deserve to die". In addition, there is a very large problem with the death penalty and that is the finality of it. As Tom Cuddy points out in his comment below: Can't let a dead man free, even if he is proven innocent later.
2
Operative sentence, " A federal court, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote, was merely supposed to stand guard against 'extreme' judicial malpractice by state courts — not 'substitute its own opinions for the determination made on the scene by the trial judge'."
Alito has apparently never run for office as a state judge. Only that could explain his extremely naïve, if not disingenuous, statement. The electoral pressures faced by trial judges to side with the prosecution in these "high profile," inflammatory cases is the stuff of courtroom legend. The picture that most often comes to mind of these politician-judges is of them lifting their finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing. Not to mention counting the number of representatives in court from the ranks of law enforcement unions on whose endorsement the judge relies come re-election time...
It's justice by popular vote once removed.
Be well.
Alito has apparently never run for office as a state judge. Only that could explain his extremely naïve, if not disingenuous, statement. The electoral pressures faced by trial judges to side with the prosecution in these "high profile," inflammatory cases is the stuff of courtroom legend. The picture that most often comes to mind of these politician-judges is of them lifting their finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing. Not to mention counting the number of representatives in court from the ranks of law enforcement unions on whose endorsement the judge relies come re-election time...
It's justice by popular vote once removed.
Be well.
17
Just another level of extreme prejudice, and misconduct in our criminal "justice" system.
4
The worst position for someone to be in, in theCriminal Justice system, is innocent. According to the Supreme Court (and the murderous Scalia and his hand-puppet Thomas), innocence does not reverse a conviction. The state is ALWAYS right, even when it's wrong.
One of the worst examples is the Texas case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed, under Rick Perry, for the murder of his daughters when he, supposedly, burned his house to the ground with them in it.
Unfortunately, the court got it absolutely wrong. The investigators who called it Arson were using 30-year-old discredited standards to prove it was arson and set by Willingham. The state also used a paid jailhouse snitch to testify Willingham told him he did it and then lied about doing so.
After conviction, the defense brought in a group of the country's top arson experts who determined, without doubt, that the fire was NOT arson. That no crime was committed and Willingham did NOT commit arson. Perry sabotaged any further investigation (he sure does like his citizens dead - some Christian!), the Supreme Court refused to hear evidence of innocence and Willingham was murdered by the State of Texas and the U. S. Supreme Court.
The reason our Founding Fathers were so dedicated to Habeas Corpus is because they fervently believed it "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted".
Now our system seems to be"kill the bastards, the hell with 'em".
How did we go so wrong?
One of the worst examples is the Texas case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed, under Rick Perry, for the murder of his daughters when he, supposedly, burned his house to the ground with them in it.
Unfortunately, the court got it absolutely wrong. The investigators who called it Arson were using 30-year-old discredited standards to prove it was arson and set by Willingham. The state also used a paid jailhouse snitch to testify Willingham told him he did it and then lied about doing so.
After conviction, the defense brought in a group of the country's top arson experts who determined, without doubt, that the fire was NOT arson. That no crime was committed and Willingham did NOT commit arson. Perry sabotaged any further investigation (he sure does like his citizens dead - some Christian!), the Supreme Court refused to hear evidence of innocence and Willingham was murdered by the State of Texas and the U. S. Supreme Court.
The reason our Founding Fathers were so dedicated to Habeas Corpus is because they fervently believed it "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted".
Now our system seems to be"kill the bastards, the hell with 'em".
How did we go so wrong?
41
Let us not romanticize our Founders, most of whom believed that the right to Habeas Corpus, among other legal protections, did not extend to African- or Native Americans.
2
What horrifies me is how unbothered my fellow Texans are by the Whillingham miscarriage of justice. Can't let a dead man free, even if he is proven innocent later. Good thing Michael Morton wasn't executed.
6
The death penalty should be abolished. It's morally wrong and probably unconstitutional.
30
Furthermore it is extremely expensive, if one thinks of that and the value of a human life at the same time; more expensive than life imprisonment. It has been proven totally ineffective in terms of deterring crime. Therefore it fulfills no real purpose, except to punish and perform mental and physical torture in a slow sadistic way. It's medieval. We're medieval.
7
This is what happens when politics and the personal agendas of elected officials leap-frog over justice and fundamental fairness, two concepts our legal system is supposed to represent. Indeed, we are supposed to be the model for the rest of the world in this regard. This horrible law illustrates that ours is not a perfect system, and there is always room for reform.
As voters, we are obligated to inform ourselves about the laws of the land ('ignorance of the law is no defense'), as there may come a day when we find ourselves or our loved ones on the receiving end of the AEDPA. Where does your candidate stand on this issue, and other criminal justice reforms? Your very life may depend on the answer.
As voters, we are obligated to inform ourselves about the laws of the land ('ignorance of the law is no defense'), as there may come a day when we find ourselves or our loved ones on the receiving end of the AEDPA. Where does your candidate stand on this issue, and other criminal justice reforms? Your very life may depend on the answer.
15
"Effective death penalty" is an oxymoron. The only way in which the death penalty is effective is in killing people.
Of course it is not always true, but it often seems that prosecutors, enabled by some judges ,would rather execute an innocent person than no one at all.
The idea that new evidence must be excluded simply because some arbitrary time limit has passed should outrage any civilized person. The fact that it happens so often makes it very clear that in many trials, especially capital trials, finding the truth is not the object.
Of course it is not always true, but it often seems that prosecutors, enabled by some judges ,would rather execute an innocent person than no one at all.
The idea that new evidence must be excluded simply because some arbitrary time limit has passed should outrage any civilized person. The fact that it happens so often makes it very clear that in many trials, especially capital trials, finding the truth is not the object.
26
Well Gee somehow making assumptions is now a valid way of determining errors. Who cares why they eliminated jurors the one's selected did their job and the result is correct. Simple!!!
3
" Who cares why they eliminated jurors the one's selected did their job and the result is correct. Simple!!!"
You are being ironic, right? The juries got it right, no matter how illegal their selection was? How about a jury of KKK to rule on the guilt of a black man, a jury full of Nazis passing judgment on a Jew, or a jury full of right-wing fundamentalist evangelicals passing judgment on a gay man?
That's OK with you too?
And the result is correct? Are you insane? Never heard of DNA and the astonishing number of death-row inmates whose convictions have been overturned because they were proven scientifically wrong, without a doubt?
And you're not very patriotic, either, are you? To our Founding Fathers, the protection of the innocent was infinitely more important than the conviction of the guilty. That's why they put the 5th Amendment and Habeas Corpus right up there in the core of the United States Constitution.
They knew how many people had been falsely executed or imprisoned in the nations they came from because they were politically or religiously disfavored and they were determined to make sure that couldn't happen in America.
How soon they forget what this very nation was founded upon...
You are being ironic, right? The juries got it right, no matter how illegal their selection was? How about a jury of KKK to rule on the guilt of a black man, a jury full of Nazis passing judgment on a Jew, or a jury full of right-wing fundamentalist evangelicals passing judgment on a gay man?
That's OK with you too?
And the result is correct? Are you insane? Never heard of DNA and the astonishing number of death-row inmates whose convictions have been overturned because they were proven scientifically wrong, without a doubt?
And you're not very patriotic, either, are you? To our Founding Fathers, the protection of the innocent was infinitely more important than the conviction of the guilty. That's why they put the 5th Amendment and Habeas Corpus right up there in the core of the United States Constitution.
They knew how many people had been falsely executed or imprisoned in the nations they came from because they were politically or religiously disfavored and they were determined to make sure that couldn't happen in America.
How soon they forget what this very nation was founded upon...
20
Even if the are wrong? Too simple. Life is not simple and the greatest eveils are perpetuated by those who think life can be that simple.
Speaking of the political realities in the countries of origin of the founding fathers, they
were governed and controlled by the wealthy landowners who were also royalty. There
was an enormous gap in the distribution of wealth between those that got to govern
and those who were "governed" - or shall we say "oppressed" - which is why the
French had a very bloody revolution. That revolution was somewhat based on our own -
which now seems like a futile war - like the Iraq war - b/c we are now governed
by the wealthy landowners again and we still have the income gap. The criminal
laws are also different for rich and poor, just see how many bankers were jailed
after they criminally destroyed the financial system of this country leading to
complete ruination of thousands, and counting, who have never recovered. Democracy has
died. Anyone notice?
were governed and controlled by the wealthy landowners who were also royalty. There
was an enormous gap in the distribution of wealth between those that got to govern
and those who were "governed" - or shall we say "oppressed" - which is why the
French had a very bloody revolution. That revolution was somewhat based on our own -
which now seems like a futile war - like the Iraq war - b/c we are now governed
by the wealthy landowners again and we still have the income gap. The criminal
laws are also different for rich and poor, just see how many bankers were jailed
after they criminally destroyed the financial system of this country leading to
complete ruination of thousands, and counting, who have never recovered. Democracy has
died. Anyone notice?
3
In 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court, on a 5-justice conservative vote, over the vigorous objections of a 4-justice dissent, overruled the finding of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc) that Thomas Thompson had received “a fundamentally unfair trial,” and reinstated the state’s death penalty order.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in which he concluded that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had abused its judicial discretion in overturning the judgment of its own three-justice panel by not adhering to the objects of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in recalling its mandate: "Although the terms of AEDPA do not govern this case, a court of appeals must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the objects of the statute."
Justice Souter wrote in the 4-justice dissent: "Whatever policy the Court is pursuing, it is not the policy of AEDPA. Nor is any other justification apparent." Calderon v. Thomspons, 118 S.Ct. 1489 (1998).
Thomas Thompson, an innocent man, was executed, seventeen years and three days ago, on July 14, 1998, at San Quentin State Prison in California, as a result of a constitutionally improper and erroneous 5-4 vote of the United States Supreme Court . . . in my opinion.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in which he concluded that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had abused its judicial discretion in overturning the judgment of its own three-justice panel by not adhering to the objects of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in recalling its mandate: "Although the terms of AEDPA do not govern this case, a court of appeals must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the objects of the statute."
Justice Souter wrote in the 4-justice dissent: "Whatever policy the Court is pursuing, it is not the policy of AEDPA. Nor is any other justification apparent." Calderon v. Thomspons, 118 S.Ct. 1489 (1998).
Thomas Thompson, an innocent man, was executed, seventeen years and three days ago, on July 14, 1998, at San Quentin State Prison in California, as a result of a constitutionally improper and erroneous 5-4 vote of the United States Supreme Court . . . in my opinion.
15
So long as we support the death penalty, innocents will die. In my opinion, just one is too many.
3
In 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court, on a 5-justice conservative vote, over the vigorous objections of a 4-justice dissent, overruled the finding of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc) that Thomas Thompson had received “a fundamentally unfair trial,” and reinstated the state’s death penalty order.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in which he concluded that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had abused its judicial discretion in overturning the judgment of its own three-justice panel by not adhering to the objects of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in recalling its mandate: "Although the terms of AEDPA do not govern this case, a court of appeals must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the objects of the statute."
Justice Souter wrote in the 4-justice dissent: "Whatever policy the Court is pursuing, it is not the policy of AEDPA. Nor is any other justification apparent." Calderon v. Thomspons, 118 S.Ct. 1489 (1998).
Thomas Thompson, an innocent man, was executed, seventeen years and three days ago, on July 14, 1998, at San Quentin State Prison in California, as a result of a constitutionally improper and erroneous 5-4 vote of the United States Supreme Court . . . in my opinion.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in which he concluded that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had abused its judicial discretion in overturning the judgment of its own three-justice panel by not adhering to the objects of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in recalling its mandate: "Although the terms of AEDPA do not govern this case, a court of appeals must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the objects of the statute."
Justice Souter wrote in the 4-justice dissent: "Whatever policy the Court is pursuing, it is not the policy of AEDPA. Nor is any other justification apparent." Calderon v. Thomspons, 118 S.Ct. 1489 (1998).
Thomas Thompson, an innocent man, was executed, seventeen years and three days ago, on July 14, 1998, at San Quentin State Prison in California, as a result of a constitutionally improper and erroneous 5-4 vote of the United States Supreme Court . . . in my opinion.
3
We must not forget that death penalty cases are merely the tip of the iceberg. Worse, because the courts are somewhat more careful when the stakes are so high, death penalty cases suggest that many people who are in jail for lesser offense probably suffered even more egregious violations of their right to due process.
But this is pushing a big rock up a steep hill. People want to believe their government. They want to believe that every cop is a Joe Friday -- a suspension of disbelief if ever there was. Moreover, the media pounds them incessantly with the message that cops are never wrong, even when they have to do wrong to get the bad guy, and that science is right there to back up everything they testi-lie to.
On top of this, has anyone ever seen a pro-criminal lobby? Politicians get elected by insisting that they are better than their opponents at getting tough on criminals. Politicians get elected by selling fear. It is shameful and corrosive. However, it is what it is and it's not likely to change.
One of the best things I ever saw was when the feds had a bunch of Mexicans in jail for various crimes. One of the older ones convinced the others that they all insist on representing themselves and demand that they be provided with Spanish interpreters. This stopped the jail train dead on its tracks, and all of those guys wound up with really good deals.
I've often that that the PDs should take every case to trial until the DAs are forced to be reasonable.
But this is pushing a big rock up a steep hill. People want to believe their government. They want to believe that every cop is a Joe Friday -- a suspension of disbelief if ever there was. Moreover, the media pounds them incessantly with the message that cops are never wrong, even when they have to do wrong to get the bad guy, and that science is right there to back up everything they testi-lie to.
On top of this, has anyone ever seen a pro-criminal lobby? Politicians get elected by insisting that they are better than their opponents at getting tough on criminals. Politicians get elected by selling fear. It is shameful and corrosive. However, it is what it is and it's not likely to change.
One of the best things I ever saw was when the feds had a bunch of Mexicans in jail for various crimes. One of the older ones convinced the others that they all insist on representing themselves and demand that they be provided with Spanish interpreters. This stopped the jail train dead on its tracks, and all of those guys wound up with really good deals.
I've often that that the PDs should take every case to trial until the DAs are forced to be reasonable.
5
In a just society Supreme Court Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito would be held responsible for every gesture of anti-humanist hate-filled rhetoric and political conniving that has tainted their decision making capabilities while sitting on the Supreme Court bench. They will be judged and indicted in the court of public opinion. Their sentencing and punishment will be decided by the individuals and corporations that pay the most money to vote. It will be a big money competition where the winner who dumps in the most money can select the terms of sentencing and the punishment. A minimum punishment will be 5 years in solitary confinement. More and harsher punishment is allowed.
Justices Roberts and Kennedy will be tried and punished separately according to a judgement and punishment paradigm being developed at this time. Stay tuned. The Liberal Bench is safe for the time being.
Justices Roberts and Kennedy will be tried and punished separately according to a judgement and punishment paradigm being developed at this time. Stay tuned. The Liberal Bench is safe for the time being.
5
Chuck Schumer was the primary mover of this terrible piece of legislation, solely in order to promote his career. The shame of it should follow him wherever he goes. One also remembers Clinton rushing back to Arkansas to preside over the execution of the brain damaged Ricky Ray Rector, again to shore up his tough on crime credentials with the voters It was no surprise that Clinton approved the legislation.
24
There are more avenues to overturn a civil judgment than a criminal one today in our courts, which shows that too often in our society money has a higher value than liberty.
24
Thank you for explaining clearly to the lay public how AEDPA eviscerated federal review of state court decisions. It is a literal death knell for many capital defendants, and a figurative one for the once Great, but now Not So Great Writ. Bill Clinton should add his signing of AEDPA to his list of apologies, as should any lawmaker who signed on to the bill.
40
Yes, and he should also apologize for "welfare reform" which eviscerated federal programs that pay for day care for the children of poor women while they go to school. Thanks to Clinton, women now need to work to get day care assistance, which by definition leaves most young mothers in poverty and stuck there forever.
25
I agree with the first two sentences of your and disagree with the last sentence.
The Michigan Law Review article (hyperlinked in paragraph 10) at footnote 121 text reads as follows:
Upon signing AEDPA into law, President Clinton stated:
I have signed this bill because I am confident that the Federal courts will interpret these provisions to preserve independent review of Federal legal claims and the bedrock constitutional principle of an independent judiciary. . . . [AEDPA] would be subject to serious constitutional challenge if it were read to preclude the Federal courts from making an independent determination about ‘what the law is’ in cases within their jurisdiction. I expect that the courts, following their usual practice of construing ambiguous statutes to avoid constitutional problems, will read [AEDPA] to permit independent Federal court review of constitutional claims based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution and Federal laws. 121
Abraham Lincoln said that "the intent of the lawgiver is the law." It is clear that the intent of Congress, and the President who signed the bill into law, is easily understood. It is the five conservative justices of the U. S. Supreme Court who have perverted the law to their own purposes.
The Michigan Law Review article (hyperlinked in paragraph 10) at footnote 121 text reads as follows:
Upon signing AEDPA into law, President Clinton stated:
I have signed this bill because I am confident that the Federal courts will interpret these provisions to preserve independent review of Federal legal claims and the bedrock constitutional principle of an independent judiciary. . . . [AEDPA] would be subject to serious constitutional challenge if it were read to preclude the Federal courts from making an independent determination about ‘what the law is’ in cases within their jurisdiction. I expect that the courts, following their usual practice of construing ambiguous statutes to avoid constitutional problems, will read [AEDPA] to permit independent Federal court review of constitutional claims based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution and Federal laws. 121
Abraham Lincoln said that "the intent of the lawgiver is the law." It is clear that the intent of Congress, and the President who signed the bill into law, is easily understood. It is the five conservative justices of the U. S. Supreme Court who have perverted the law to their own purposes.
21
Wow. Thank you. You're very informative re this issue. Appreciate.
1
How evil is this thought: dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, that includes this protest: “This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
No person is evil beyond redemption, and the [what I call] God who created the space-time continuum will outlast our human fallibility, but thoughts can be evil, and this one is.
No person is evil beyond redemption, and the [what I call] God who created the space-time continuum will outlast our human fallibility, but thoughts can be evil, and this one is.
47
Scalia and Thomas are beneath contempt. If the current laws prevent a convict from presenting sure evidence of his innocence, then surely those laws are evil, and should be unconstitutional. However nothing surprises me about Scalia; he is totally without principles. In the past he has ruled that statements in a given law must be taken in context, but yet in the recent ACA case his strongly worded dissent argued the opposite. He must be the worst justice of all time on SCOTUS.
19
Don't worry about fairness or justice, right or wrong, evil or good….It's all about Due-Process. It's the Law. We don't care about fairness.
8
Better the be guilty and rich than poor and innocent.
One country, one law.
One country, millions of people, thousands of felony cases every year, each one unique.
To think that "One Law" can cover everything , everyone, every case is naive at best. Even God gave the Hebrews a minor compliment of "10" laws.
To think that "One Law" can cover everything , everyone, every case is naive at best. Even God gave the Hebrews a minor compliment of "10" laws.
7