Death Penalty Ruled Unconstitutional . . in Texas
March 3, 2010 in Misc
OMG! State District Judge Kevin Fine, a democrat with lots of tattoos who, like former Texas governor G.W. Bush, is a recovering alcoholic and former cocaine user*, “made the ruling against the death penalty this week in a pre-trial motion in a capital murder case, saying he could assume that innocent people have been executed.”
Among the millions of Texans jumping on the bandwagon of partisan criticism was Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who called Fine’s ruling one of “unabashed judicial activism.” However, it’s unclear whether General Abbott’s use of the term “unabashed judicial activism” refers as well to rulings like Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas (1957) and Bush v Gore (2000) or to court rulings that he simply doesn’t agree with.
What Judge Fine does not seem to realize is that in order to make an omelet, you have to be willing to break some eggs! Since there is no such thing as a system that is 100% guaranteed accurate in executing only the guilty, the people of Texas have made it clear that they are willing to risk the rare innocent death in return for the greatest system of retribution in the world!
*(How did a Democrat get elected state district judge in execution alley? It’s nice to know that recovering alcoholics and drug addicts can easily get elected to hold office as state judges, governors, and US Presidents . . just as long as they are not doctors and as long as they steer clear of the Texas Medical Board).
Judge Fine was injudicious and irresponsible.
Dudley Sharp, contact info below
On March 4th, District Court Judge Fine (Houston, Harris County, Texas) found the death penalty unconstitutional based upon innocents executed. It appears that he blindly accepted defense attorney claims without fact checking them.
Judge Fine states with ” . . . more than 200 people being exonerated nationwide, it can only be concluded that innocent people have been executed.” (1) The 200 number is all but irrelevant to death row, but does represent an inaccurate counting of DNA freed cases, as per the Innocence Project, for the entire prison population, not just death row. I suspect the judge received that inaccurate number from defense counsel.
The 200 number is nearly irrelevant to death row. 9 inmates have been released from death row because of DNA exclusion.
It appears neither Judge Fine nor defense counsel fact checked.
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
In the modern death penalty era, possibly, 25 inmates have been released from death row based upon actual innocence. (2)
25 not 200. Analysis below.
That is about 0.3% of those sentenced to death since 1973. All were freed.
Likely, there is not a more accurate sanction when it comes to convicting the actually guilty and freeing the actually innocent.
Judge Fine’s decision appears similar to the one made by New York Federal District Court Judge Jed Rakoff in the Quinones case, whereby Rakoff found the federal death penalty statute unconstitutional. I stated, then, that it was an idiotic decision which would quickly be overturned. It was. At least Rakoff fact checked.
I am sure Judge Fine is aware that the death penalty is included in both the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution and that both Texas State courts as well as the US Supreme Court have always upheld the death penalty as constitutional (2), regardless of challenge. In other words, this is simply a story of a judge going ego wild, wanting to put a personal stamp on a decision, without any care for the law or the constitution.
Judge Fine can speculate all he wants about the innocents that may have been executed. He should, however, look at the facts and the law, before rendering a decision.
Judge Fine also failed to notice that innocents are more protected with the death penalty than with the lesser sanction of life without parole. Judge Fine failed to notice a great deal. Or did he?
“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com
The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com
“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com
Sincerely, Dudley Sharp
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
(1) “Judge declares death penalty unconstitutional: Maverick jurist grants pretrial motion in Houston murder case”, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, March 5, 2010
(2) Some wrongly describe Furman v Georgia as finding the death penalty unconstitutional. It did not.
The US death penalty system is good only for retribution. There is no proof that it reduces crime, reduces violent crime, is a deterrent, prevents mass killings, prevents serial killings, is less costly, or efficient. We like having this option around for convicted criminals we don’t think should be allowed to continue to consume oxygen. Simple. To believe otherwise is foolish.
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint) in order to have a system whereby the death penalty is effective in affecting the behavior of the populace is to deliver swift and terrible “justice” upon far more people and in far less time than the current US system. Historically, the vast majority of such systems have been dictatorships, empires, theocracies, and oligarchies that have used capital punishment and extensive corporal punishment in great quantities to control not only criminal activity, but the political and even greater social activities of the citizenry. The control and deterrence of criminal activity by way of extreme and swift punishment almost always tended to go along with the control and deterrence of political and social decent by means of swift and extreme punishment.
It is for these reasons and not for greater protection of violent criminals, that the Founding Fathers sought to limit what punishments the government could inflict upon the people but prohibiting the use of “cruel and unusual punishment” in addition to many other legal protections.
Effectively, our Constitution’s legal protections significantly limit the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to violent crime thereby limiting the rationality of having the death penalty to one of government sanctioned retribution. To move towards a system where the death penalty is actually effective as a deterrent would mean limiting or even eliminating many of our Constitutional protections. Think, 2002 Iraq, 1945 USSR, England prior to 1215, or the Roman Empire at any time.