Supreme Court Justice
While much of the political world was obsessing over Judge John Roberts' fitness to sit on the US Supreme Court, a currently seated justice, John Paul Stevens, spoke to the American Bar Association in Chicago on capital punishment, and for a moment, people forgot about Judge Roberts.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens issued an unusually stinging criticism of capital punishment Saturday evening, telling the American Bar Association that he is disturbed by "serious flaws."
Other Supreme Court justices have also spoken out about concerns that defendants in murder cases are not adequately represented. But Stevens made a much harsher condemnation.
He said Supreme Court cases have revealed that "a significant number of defendants in capital cases have not been provided with fully competent legal representation at trial."
In addition, Stevens said he had reviewed records that showed "special risks of unfairness" in capital punishment.
Juries might not be balanced because people who have qualms about capital punishment can be excluded by prosecutors, he said. He questioned whether potential jurors are distracted by extensive questions about their death penalty views.
A statement from a victim's family, Stevens said, sometimes "serves no purpose other than to encourage jurors to decide in favor of death rather than life on the basis of their emotions rather than their reason."
Given the fact that the Court is set to hear at least four cases in the next session, Justice Stevens' comments are especially pointed. Several other justices (as the article points out) have also spoken out on the specific issue of adequate legal representation for defendants in capital cases, but Stevens' comments go beyond that issue to the prosecutorial conduct of the case, from the examination of potential jurors to the presentation of what is usually inflammatory testimony from the family of victims.
What he didn't explicitly state (according to the AP article) is the first step in the entire process, the drafting of the charge by the prosecution, i.e., the decision to charge the defendant with capital murder. I suspect his rather vague reference to records that showed "special risks of unfairness" in capital punishment might have to do with the rather high number of non-white and non-rich defendants who are so charged and convicted.
I think we are moving beyond the "serious flaws" status. I think this nation needs to join the rest of the civilized western world in doing away with the death penalty. This kind of barbarism, even if it could ever by administered fairly, is still barbarism.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens issued an unusually stinging criticism of capital punishment Saturday evening, telling the American Bar Association that he is disturbed by "serious flaws."
Other Supreme Court justices have also spoken out about concerns that defendants in murder cases are not adequately represented. But Stevens made a much harsher condemnation.
He said Supreme Court cases have revealed that "a significant number of defendants in capital cases have not been provided with fully competent legal representation at trial."
In addition, Stevens said he had reviewed records that showed "special risks of unfairness" in capital punishment.
Juries might not be balanced because people who have qualms about capital punishment can be excluded by prosecutors, he said. He questioned whether potential jurors are distracted by extensive questions about their death penalty views.
A statement from a victim's family, Stevens said, sometimes "serves no purpose other than to encourage jurors to decide in favor of death rather than life on the basis of their emotions rather than their reason."
Given the fact that the Court is set to hear at least four cases in the next session, Justice Stevens' comments are especially pointed. Several other justices (as the article points out) have also spoken out on the specific issue of adequate legal representation for defendants in capital cases, but Stevens' comments go beyond that issue to the prosecutorial conduct of the case, from the examination of potential jurors to the presentation of what is usually inflammatory testimony from the family of victims.
What he didn't explicitly state (according to the AP article) is the first step in the entire process, the drafting of the charge by the prosecution, i.e., the decision to charge the defendant with capital murder. I suspect his rather vague reference to records that showed "special risks of unfairness" in capital punishment might have to do with the rather high number of non-white and non-rich defendants who are so charged and convicted.
I think we are moving beyond the "serious flaws" status. I think this nation needs to join the rest of the civilized western world in doing away with the death penalty. This kind of barbarism, even if it could ever by administered fairly, is still barbarism.
posted by Diane at 3:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home