Now Here's A Good Idea...
...NOT.
Apparently the new and improved Patriot Act passed by the 109th Congress contains a provision giving (of all people) the Attorney General power over how states process death sentence appeals, according to an article in today's Los Angeles Times.
The Justice Department is putting the final touches on regulations that could give Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales important new sway over death penalty cases in California and other states, including the power to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts.
The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act that gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.
Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use "fast track" procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court. [Emphasis added]
This clear attack on states rights and on the federal judiciary was led by two pretty familiar characters:
Frustrated with the pace of changes — and believing that judges were part of the problem — death penalty advocates Rep. Dan Lungren (R-[CA]) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) led a successful effort to include language in the Patriot Act last year that let the attorney general, rather than judges, decide whether states were ensuring death row inmates had adequate legal representation.
Under the law, the attorney general's decision could be challenged before the federal appeals court in Washington.
The really amazing part of this terrible provision in this terrible law is that the clear conflict of interest involved apparently didn't occur to the last Congress. The nation's top prosecutor, the Attorney General, is being given the power traditionally held by the courts, which are supposed to be the neutral arbiters in such cases.
And now, the power is being given to Alberto Gonzales, a man whose testimony to Congress has been filled with "confusing testimony" filled with half-truths and clear lies.
How stupid is that?
More importantly, how dangerous is that?
Apparently the new and improved Patriot Act passed by the 109th Congress contains a provision giving (of all people) the Attorney General power over how states process death sentence appeals, according to an article in today's Los Angeles Times.
The Justice Department is putting the final touches on regulations that could give Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales important new sway over death penalty cases in California and other states, including the power to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts.
The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act that gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.
Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use "fast track" procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court. [Emphasis added]
This clear attack on states rights and on the federal judiciary was led by two pretty familiar characters:
Frustrated with the pace of changes — and believing that judges were part of the problem — death penalty advocates Rep. Dan Lungren (R-[CA]) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) led a successful effort to include language in the Patriot Act last year that let the attorney general, rather than judges, decide whether states were ensuring death row inmates had adequate legal representation.
Under the law, the attorney general's decision could be challenged before the federal appeals court in Washington.
The really amazing part of this terrible provision in this terrible law is that the clear conflict of interest involved apparently didn't occur to the last Congress. The nation's top prosecutor, the Attorney General, is being given the power traditionally held by the courts, which are supposed to be the neutral arbiters in such cases.
And now, the power is being given to Alberto Gonzales, a man whose testimony to Congress has been filled with "confusing testimony" filled with half-truths and clear lies.
How stupid is that?
More importantly, how dangerous is that?
Labels: Well Duh
posted by Diane at 3:55 AM
2 Comments:
Google Herrera v Collins. Justices Scalia and Thomas writing for the majority said that prisoners are not entitled to a new trial based solely on the fact that they are innocent.
So when is a prosecutor going to make it harder for fellow prosecutors to get convictions and get people executed?
Yes, we could imagine a Platonic perfect prosecutor who, in the words of the Ethical Considerations (might even be the Rules of Professional Responsibility; it's been a while since I studied these), is more concerned that justice be done than that people be convicted, but it doesn't take much acumen to see that Alberto Gonzales could never be anything like that ideal prosecutor.
They are really terrified of a neutral detached magistrate, aren't they? Makes you wonder what they're hiding that we haven't seen yet.
Post a Comment
<< Home