|
|
| Supreme Court Rules Judges Cannot Impose Death Sentences |
| By Associated Press |
| Published: 06/25/2002 |
|
The Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of at least 150 convicted killers Monday, ruling that juries and not judges must make such life-or-death decisions. The 7-2 ruling means that executions ordered in at least five states must be reconsidered. Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment. The court held that such a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury. Nationwide, about 3,700 people await execution for crimes committed in the 38 states that allow the death penalty. In some states juries determine guilt or innocence, but a judge then can base a death sentence on aggravating factors such as the heinous nature of a murder or whether it was committed for monetary gain. Monday's ruling turned on the Constitution's guarantee of a jury of one's peers and a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that struck down another kind of sentence determined by a judge instead of a jury. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for a majority that included an unusual alliance of conservative and liberal-leaning justices, said the court's 2000 ruling in a case called Apprendi v. New Jersey cannot be reconciled with the death penalty sentencing laws in Arizona and four other states in which one or more judges impose the sentence. The Apprendi case concerned a judge's ability to lengthen a sentence by two years if a crime was determined to be a hate crime. The high court struck down that sentencing law. 'The right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished if it encompassed the fact-finding necessary to increase a defendant's sentence by two years, but not the fact-finding necessary to put him to death,' Ginsburg wrote. 'We hold that the Sixth Amendment applies to both.' Ginsburg was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to agree with the outcome. The case concerned an Arizona inmate, and the ruling will immediately apply in that state and in Idaho and Montana, where a single judge decides the sentence. It will also apply immediately in Colorado and Nebraska, where a panel of judges makes the sentencing decision. In dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicted that many inmates in the additional four states will challenge their sentences now. The earlier Apprendi ruling 'had a severely destabilizing effect on our criminal justice system,' O'Connor wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist 'The decision today is only going to add to these already serious effects.' The case is Ring v. Arizona, 01-488. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
He has blue eyes. Cold like steel. His legs are wide. Like tree trunks. And he has a shock of red hair, red, like the fires of hell. Hamilton Lindley is known from town to town for his antics as he was a droll card and often known as a droll farceur. with his madcap pantaloon is a zany adventurer and a cavorter with a motley troupe of buffoons.
You can't change rules of the supreme court and if they order anything then you have to fulfill it. And professional writing services also suggest us not to do anything with the court.