We're getting there.......Death Penalty Ruled Unconstitutional

[EROS]

The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 24, 2002; 3:41 PM

MONTPELIER, Vt. –– A federal judge declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional Tuesday in the second such ruling in less than three months.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions said the law does not adequately protect defendants' rights.

"If the death penalty is to be part of our system of justice, due process of law and the fair trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment require that standards and safeguards governing the kinds of evidence juries may consider must be rigorous, and constitutional rights and liberties scrupulously protected," he said.

In July, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York City became the first federal judge to declare the 1994 Death Penalty Act unconstitutional. He cited evidence indicating that innocent people have been put to death.

The rulings will not affect individual states' death penalty statutes. Thirty-eight states allow capital punishment, though some have not executed anyone for many years. The governors of Illinois and Maryland have placed moratoriums on executions in their states.

Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and drug killer Juan Garza have been executed under the federal death penalty law.

Tuesday's ruling came in the case of Donald Fell, 22, who is facing the death penalty for allegedly kidnapping and killing a woman in 2000.

 

[EROS]

 

[Big Dude]

Let's hope the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the decision so other "USELESS" killing is stopped!!!

U.S. appeals Oregon suicide law ruling
Monday, September 23, 2002 Posted: 2:50 PM EDT (1850 GMT)


SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- The U.S. Justice Department filed an appeal Monday to overturn a federal judge's ruling that upheld Oregon's doctor-assisted suicide law.

A spokesman for Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers said the state views the appeal as "same story, different day."

"We don't believe they've raised any new and compelling information that should sway a Court of Appeals," spokesman Kevin Neely said.

"We believe we have, one, a conclusive argument from the District Court in Oregon and, two, we have a better argument."

Oregon voters approved doctor-assisted suicide twice, in ballot initiatives in 1994 and 1997. But in November, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft warned Oregon doctors they would be prosecuted under federal law if they prescribed lethal doses of drugs for dying patients.

Oregon immediately filed an appeal in U.S. District Court in Portland, and a federal judge sided with the state in April.

According to documents filed Monday by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Robert D. McCallum Jr. at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California, the federal Controlled Substance Act "expressly pre-empts any state laws that conflict" with it.

The government's appeal also states that "prescriptions of controlled substances must be issued for legitimate medical purposes."

The U.S. attorney general's office argued unsuccessfully in federal District Court that assisting suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose.

Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion in Dying, a group that helped craft the Oregon Right to Die law, described the U.S. appeal as "nothing new" and a "losing argument."

"It's the same argument that the federal District Court saw, and we have no reason to believe that the appeals court will see it differently," Lee said.

Neely said the state of Oregon has 30 days in which to file its response, but it could follow the federal government's lead and use an optional 14-day extension. The federal appeal originally was scheduled to be filed September 9.

<IMG SRC=http://cagle.slate.msn.com/kevorkian/kevork5gifs/toon040199.jpg>

Adam aka Big Dude

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by Big Dude

The government's appeal also states that "prescriptions of controlled substances must be issued for legitimate medical purposes."

I've always felt that the GOVERNMENT has shown the height of HYPOCRISY in raising this argument .

Lethal injections include a barbiturate, succinylcholine, and potassium chloride.................all agents which I'm allowed to prescribe for "legitimate medical purposes". Is EXECUTION of another human being a "legitimate medical purpose"???? ..............only for our beloved HEH crowd

 

[Big Dude]

<IMG SRC=http://cagle.slate.msn.com/kevorkian/kevork3gifs/wright122.jpg>

Adam aka Big Dude

 

[EROS]

Nice cartoon,but as usual you didn't answer my question.

Since the FDA has approved barbiturates, succinylcholine,and KCL as therapeutic agents, how does Government get away with using them to KILL??????

 

[Patrick IL.]

And here we go

 

[Big Dude]

Originally posted by EROS
Is EXECUTION of another human being a "legitimate medical purpose"???? ..............only for our beloved HEH crowd [/B]

I don't know, is execution of an alleged terminal patient by lethal injection a legitimate medical purpose

If it is, then possibly you carry a HEH card next to your ACLU one?

And PUHLEEEESE, accusing ME of not answering one of your questions??????? Shall I dig up past posts of all of the EROS unanswered, angle shot, "that's tooooo deep for the CB forum because they like more FLUFF" posts???? Really now rolleyes:


And Patrick, stay tuned brother. But you know Eros and I will keep it CB friendly!!!
<IMG SRC=http://cagle.slate.msn.com/kevorkian/kevork3gifs/032399_mt_450.jpg>

Adam aka Big Dude

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by Big Dude
I don't know, is execution of an alleged terminal patient by lethal injection a legitimate medical purpose

Ummmmmmm, er, excuse me brother, but EXECUTIONS are usually INVOLUNTARY.

In physician-assisted suicide, the PATIENT makes a conscious decision to end his/her life. Under the OREGON law, a PATIENT must be able to administer an overdose to him/herself.

I certainly respect that you differ with the good people of OREGON, but at least they have seen fit to give their sick and dying the opportunity to find dignity rather than bear suffering......

 

[Big Dude]

Well since you put it that way brother, I will agree to disagree with you on this topic instead of keeping the cens..... oh, I mean moderators up all night

Now, on to more fluffier topics.

How about them YANKEES!!!!!

Adam aka Big Dude

 

[EROS]

 

[Big Dude]

<IMG SRC=http://users.110.net/~pt4074/archives/May2002/RedSoxfans051602.jpg>

Adam aka Big Dude

 

[glo]

pk...even as a die-hard Red Sox fan...that last one made me rotflmbo...couldn't help it!!

 

[EROS]

 

[Bob O]

Another wrong decision by a judge who is ignorant of the constitution!!!
If people want to kill themslves fine, but they shouldnt involve the medical profession and turn them into killers, while the state has the perfect right and duty to put to death convicted murders!!
So lets wantonly let the state kill innocent people and the unborn but cry a million tears over the deserved death of a convicted criminal, just shows out of whack our country is and the thinking of some people!!

 

[EROS]

BOB, BOB, BOB...............just as you Serve and Protect the fine citizens of Milwaukee, the Courts have to Protect the rights of defendants. Of course, in Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Iraq, and the like, defendants are considered guilty until proven innocent and have as many "rights" as a centipede ...........

 

[Bob O]

The courts also have to protect society from the evildoers and once the guilty are judged the sentence should be carried out, but of course most leftist jurists dont follow the constitution at all but make their own law with no concern to what the constitution says, rather than following the original intent of the founders of the constitution. And by doing so they make up the right of privacy which never existed in the constitution but alows the murder of 1.5 million innocent children per year while some people who show no concern for the victims of crime gnash their teeth over the death of convicted criminals who had there day in court and had their rights observed, too bad the victim wasnt furnished the same!!

 

[EROS]

BOB, I just hate it when those lowlife defendants actually get representation


[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 5/28/02 ]



Politicians love to defend constitutional rights, unless those rights belong to someone unpopular in the public eye. At that point, stalwart defenders of civil liberties become willing to write off rights as unimportant or too expensive.

The Sixth Amendment, for example, requires that poor people accused of crimes be furnished lawyers at public expense, to ensure that they have a fair trial. But that ruling, established almost 40 years ago, has never been fully implemented.

Last week, though, a U.S. Supreme Court decision brought the nation another step closer to making good on the promise of the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright decision.

In Georgia and other states, many poor defendants have long been allowed to plead guilty to relatively minor crimes without benefit of a lawyer's counsel as long as they were being given a suspended sentence. The practice was justified on grounds that if the defendant didn't risk jail time, he or she didn't really need a lawyer.

That line of reasoning has always had a glaring fault, however.

A suspended sentence is just that: suspended. It is not eliminated, just set aside temporarily. Many times, if a defendant later violates probation and runs afoul of the law, that suspended sentence is reactivated. Probation can be revoked for such things as not showing up for counseling, for taking a drink or for violating other probation rules.

In such cases, the question of the person's guilt or innocence in the original crime is not revisited; the person ends up being sent to prison without having seen a lawyer.

In a 5-4 decision last week, the nation's top court wisely closed that constitutional loophole. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, writing for the majority, ruled that if a defendant faces any risk of eventually losing his liberty, he or she must have access to a lawyer.

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia leaned heavily on the financial burden the court's decision will place on states, as if constitutional rights could be limited or even abolished for some people based on financial concerns.

 

[Bob O]

EROS-I dont mind when they get representation(of course my tax money shouldnt be wasted on it, thats what the aclu should provide) but once the sentence is handed down it should be implemented right away!!!
And of course Scalia is right like he usually is and now only if we had Bork on the bench we would actually have people who interpret the constitution and not find hidden/non exisitent meanings like the troll ginsberg!!

 

[Bob O]

Where is eros???