March 16
USA:
'Right to trial' now a spectator sport--Column Titles are Stupid
This country loves trials.
Loves them.
In the United States, we love baseball, apple pie and highly publicized
trials. It's fun for the whole family.
To hell with taking the family to Wrigley Field, buying a hot dog and
taking in a fun time at the ball game.
Round up the wife, junior and the baby, head down to the courthouse and
take in a good old-fashioned day of watching our criminal justice system
in action.
Hey, the case might even involve a celebrity!
And I'm sure you can probably get a hot dog while you're there.
Why is it that every time the case of an ex-pro football player accused of
a double murder or a weirdo, no-nose-having, kind-of black, kind-of white
washed-up pop singer accused of child molestation goes to trial this
nation just goes berserk with trial fever?
We can't get enough of it! For God's sake, why is it front-page news that
Michael Jackson showed up for court in his pajamas?
Okay, that question kind of answers itself, but why is this country so
blasted obsessed with knowing everything there is to know about a trial
involving people who, in the grand scheme of things, aren't important and
with whom they share no sort of personal attachment?
Personally, I think it's because there's no hockey this season, but I'm
definitely open to suggestions.
Then again, the mentality of the average trial-watcher really isn't that
much different than your average sports nut. They follow along with the
trial, looking for the defense to slip up like a basketball fan just
waiting for an excuse to say that the referee's biased toward the other
team.
It could have something to do with the fact that people in America like to
see people get punished. We're a nation of masochists in that sense:
somebody's accused of having done something wrong, and we want to see us
some decent punishment.
Think about it. In this country, the general population overwhelmingly
supports the death penalty, stiff penalties for drug dealers and swift
delivery of punishment to corporate criminals. Maybe we're following along
with the trial in anticipation of the sentence.
In the end, though, like sports, trials are a diversion. It's a spectator
event.
Remember the O.J. trial? Minute-by-minute, second-by-second coverage of
O.J.'s every move, Marcia Clark's every blunder and F. Lee Bailey's every
remark was televised live on just about every network imaginable.
With the Michael Jackson trial, E! Entertainment Television recreates the
events of the trial every night since cameras aren't allowed in the
courtroom.
We are, at our very core, a nation of voyeurs, of people so unsatisfied
with their own lives that they have to peer over the fence at what the
neighbors are doing. It's the same reason reality TV is so popular.
In fact, trial coverage is practically becoming a reality show in and of
itself.
Maybe the justice system could stand to be spiced up a bit. Let's run a
50-week show, with each episode about a trial in a different state. The
prosecution and the defense each have an hour to make their case, and at
the end of the show America votes on the winner.
They could even get Judge Ito to host!
America's criminal justice system is founded on the principal that you're
innocent until you're proven guilty. And I guess our laws do suggest that
you are entitled to a public trial by a jury of your peers.
I just have a feeling that the founding fathers didn't count on the
general public being entertained by it.
(source: Indiana Statesman)
*********************************
World Court and domestic law
In 1969, the United States ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular
Rights, which requires that foreign nationals who are arrested have the
right to consult with consular officials from their country. Fair enough:
Foreigners in the U.S. have that right, and so do Americans abroad.
A protocol to that convention provided a means of enforcement: It allowed
the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, to hear
complaints against countries that did not comply with the convention.
The convention was ratified by 166 countries--but only 30 % ratified the
protocol, and for good reason. Most countries are not willing to let an
international court dictate or interfere in their domestic legal affairs.
The U.S. was one of the few nations that signed the protocol. It tried to
use those rules in 1979 to win the release of the 52 American hostages in
Iran.
On March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed the United
Nations that the U.S. is withdrawing from the protocol. That was a
decision long overdue.
Last year, the World Court ordered the U.S. to review the cases of 51
Mexican nationals on Death Row in six states who allegedly did not get the
chance to speak with consular officials at the time of their arrests.
The order for a review does not seek to set those men free but directs the
U.S. courts to revisit their cases to determine if the lack of access to
consular officials made any material difference in their trials. Because
the U.S. was a signatory to the protocol, on Feb. 28 Bush ordered the six
states in question to conduct the reviews.
About two weeks later came Rice's announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from
the protocol. The World Court decision regarding the Mexican nationals no
doubt prompted the U.S. to review the implications of the protocol and
what role international courts should have on the domestic judiciary. In
effect, the administration has said, we will live by our obligation, but
we are no longer comfortable with that obligation.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 28 in the case of Jose
Medellin, one of the 51 Mexicans on Death Row. He is asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to enforce the World Court decision concerning his lack of
access to consular officials.
Most legal scholars seriously doubt the Supreme Court will subordinate the
U.S. legal system to orders of the World Court, particularly now that the
protocol has been rescinded.
But since the U.S. is still a party to the Vienna Convention, the
principle of consular consultation is likely to be recognized and
incorporated into domestic law. Domestic law enforcement officials will
have to follow the principle of consular consultation, but disputes will
be settled in American courts rather than international courts.
Texas, which holds 15 of the 51 Mexicans on Death Row, has contested the
president's right to order states to review these cases and the authority
of international tribunals to tell states what to do.
There are some grounds for questioning whether the president overstepped
his authority in this case, but not the applicability of the principles of
the Vienna Convention. The U.S. Constitution says that the judges in every
state are bound by treaties made by the United States.
The Bush administration has made a careful and proper distinction here. It
has not voided the Vienna Convention--foreign nationals here and Americans
abroad still have the right to see their consuls. It has, though,
clarified another important principle: Any violations of the Vienna
Convention in the U.S. ought to be settled by American, rather than
international, courts.
(source: Chicago Tribune)
******************
Busted abroad?/No more World Court aid
Let's say you are arrested abroad on drug possession charges or something
worse. All a big mistake, of course, but nerve-racking, given the language
barrier and all, so far from home. But in most countries you'd have a
welcome ace to fall back on: You'd get to contact an American consular
official, who could advise you on the legal system, recommend counsel,
contact your family, arrange bail and, if it is a real railroad job, get
some senior American official to exert pressure in the right places.
This contact with people from home is your due, guaranteed by the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, to which the United States and most
other nations are signatories. And in many countries, if your rights under
the convention are trampled, the United States until recently would have
had a powerful weapon to aid in your defense: It could appeal to the World
Court in The Hague, which had final authority in such cases under
something called the "optional protocol" to the consular convention.
No longer is that true, however. Last week, the Bush administration
withdrew from the optional protocol because, it said, the World Court was
getting involved inappropriately in American legal matters.
What was this involvement? In response to a complaint by Mexico, the World
Court had ruled that 51 Mexican death-row inmates are due a new hearing.
Their right to make contact with an Mexican consular official may have
been violated.
The headliner case, that of Jose Medellin, certainly suggests Mexico has a
point. Medellin was arrested for murder and assigned a lawyer who had been
suspended from law for ethical lapses. The lawyer called not a single
witness in the case. Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death. Three
years later, when Mexico finally learned of his case, Mexican authorities
argued that had they been notified immediately, Medellin might have gotten
counsel that was more competent.
The optional protocol that the Bush administration has now ditched was not
a foreign invention imposed on the United States. It was designed by
American officials in order to give the consular convention some teeth.
The World Court only reviewed the Mexican cases because the United States
had, decades before, agreed that it had such authority.
Bush administration officials point out that less than 1/3 of countries
that signed the consular conventions also signed the optional protocol.
That's true but beside the point. Given the hostility Americans face
abroad today, the Bush team ought to be expanding the power of the World
Court, not giving other nations another excuse to abuse U.S. citizens.
(source: Editorial, Star-Tribune)
*********************
Courting trouble
It's time for some changes at the Supreme Court. How about forcing
justices to retire at 70? Better, let's dissolve the court and let the
Senate serve as the court of last resort. Too extreme, you say? But these
proposals would merely bring us into line with our allies in Canada and
Britain.
The Canadians have a mandatory retirement age for their judges, and in
Britain the House of Lords serves as the nation's highest court. Oh, sure,
these changes would be unconstitutional. But turnabout is fair play. The
Supreme Court no longer restricts itself to following U.S. law and the
U.S. Constitution, so why shouldn't we make arbitrary, unconstitutional
changes to the court?
The latest example of judicial overreach came in this month's Roper v.
Simmons decision. By a 5-4 margin, the court ruled states may not execute
anyone younger than 18 at the time of his crime. No matter where you stand
on the death penalty, as an American you should be troubled by the court's
rationale.
In the majority decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote there's now a
"national consensus" against the death penalty for juveniles, but his
conclusion is based on what the dissent described as "the flimsiest
grounds." Indeed, a majority of death penalty states authorize the
punishment for 16- and 17-year olds who commit certain premeditated and
aggravated murders. So much for a supposed national consensus.
But Justice Kennedy went even further, noting the majority "finds
confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only
country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the
juvenile death penalty." Most Americans would say, "So what?" It doesn't
matter what other countries do or what laws they pass. Americans are
subject only to our laws and our Constitution.
Still, Justice Kennedy seems proud to rely on international law. "The
overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death
penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant
confirmation for the court's determination that the penalty is
disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18," he wrote.
Sadly, Justice Kennedy wasn't alone. In her dissenting opinion, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor noted she would be willing to cite international law
if doing so suited her purpose. "The existence of an international
consensus of this nature can serve to confirm the reasonableness of a
consonant and genuine American consensus," she wrote.
Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent was the only opinion that made much
sense. "I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any
more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be
determined by the subjective views of five members of this court and
like-minded foreigners," he wrote, in an opinion joined by Justice
Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
These 3 men are, apparently, the only true conservatives on the court,
i.e. they want to conserve the traditional idea that American courts must
rely on American laws when making their decisions. The Supremacy Clause of
our Constitution makes clear the only supreme law of our land is the U.S.
Constitution, U.S. laws in conformity with the Constitution and duly
ratified treaties -- not foreign-court decisions.
Luckily, the internationalization trend hasn't yet spread to our executive
branch. President Bush has made it clear the U.S. won't join the
International Criminal Court in The Hague. Other countries are pressing
the U.S. to join, because doing so would tie us into the "international
law" some of our Supreme Court justices seem to respect so much.
Of course, Americans would hardly recognize the ICC as a court. For
example, defendants may face double jeopardy, hearsay evidence, absentee
trials and other things not permitted in American courts. Should we
abandon these protections just because they are not part of international
law?
The United States has an excellent Constitution, and plenty of homegrown
laws. We don't need to import any from foreign lands. Our judges must
confine themselves to interpreting our own laws, instead of subjecting us
to foreign laws. Or is it time to get a few new judges who will?
(source: Washington Times (Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage
Foundation)
********************
No to death penalty----I know it's a deterrent, and I don't buy into
left's rant, but it could put innocent lives at risk
Nothing enlivens a dinner conversation like a chat about the death
penalty.
Gov. Bill Richardson is for it, but the New Mexico House of
Representatives voted to abolish it. So last week the Senate - where the
going's always better for Richardson - tabled the debate. Pass the rolls.
I suspect most us have mixed feelings about the death penalty. I'm opposed
to it - with mixed feelings. I don't believe for a minute it's not a
deterrent. It is.
But there are too many cases where the wrong person's behind bars. Death
and taxes might be inevitable, but the responsibility for the death of an
innocent human being needn't be.
That doesn't mean I buy into the left's rant that our system is drenched
in bias or that police, prosecutors, jurors and judges routinely conspire
to misguide justice. I believe the opposite, in fact. The majority of
those entrusted to enforce the law and mete out justice take their
responsibilities seriously and professionally.
Polls show many people who favor the death penalty do so because the term
"life in prison" is as empty as "have a nice day." Yes, New Mexico death
penalty opponents propose "life without possibility of parole" instead of
death. Even so, it's hard for reasonable people to choke down their anger
when they learn some coldblooded murderers, reportedly sentenced to "life
in prison," are back on the streets after a time by virtue of their "good
behavior."
I am curious about how those who believe the death penalty is moral feel
about the sad battle being waged in Florida over the life of Terri
Schiavo, where Schiavo's husband and her parents are pitted against each
other.
Florida's Supreme Court ruled Schiavo - who is in a "vegetativelike"
state, doctors say, but not a coma - will have her feeding tube removed on
Friday at 11 a.m. She will then starve to death.
Consider for a moment the parents' perspective: They're starving their
child to death. Outsiders can easily take glib stands - her life's not
really a life, after all. But the players in this case don't have that
luxury.
What if - like lethally injecting an innocent man - removing the tube is
the wrong thing? What if her system is slowly changing - regenerating,
let's say? Or what if, once the tube is removed, she is aware of the pain
of starvation but incapable of communicating that misery?
Cruel? Unusual? Florida's Supreme Court has placed those questions on the
shoulders of its citizens. Some will say they can live with it. Some won't
give it a second thought.
But we are our government. So we should give 2nd, even 3rd thoughts, to
giving our agents the power to take life.
Just as we have a right to have bad people permanently removed from our
society, we also have a duty not have innocent blood on our hands.
Dessert, anyone?
(source: Column, Jeff Gardner, Alubuquerqie Tribune)
MARYLAND:
Court OKs requirement of intent to seek death----Arundel case lets judges
require any capital charge at time of indictment
Prosecutors failed yesterday to have the state's highest court reverse a
judge's requirement that they must say whether they want to seek the death
penalty when they bring a murder indictment -- leaving it to individual
judges to set their own rules.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, in a majority opinion by Judge Lynne A.
Battaglia, said the court lacked the authority to jump into the Anne
Arundel County case because prosecutors have no right to make the
challenge. The 4-3 vote dismissed the request by the Maryland attorney
general that the court stop judges in that county from rewriting the state
law, which requires prosecutors to give the defense 30 days' warning that
they intend to seek the death penalty.
Although the ruling leaves judges free to require prosecutors to obtain
the death penalty indictments, lawyers said they have not heard of other
judges, besides the two in Anne Arundel County, doing that.
In the dissent, Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote that the high court
should have erased the decision by Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge
Joseph P. Manck.
Yesterday's ruling returns the case of Michael D. Henry, accused of
killing a fellow prisoner, to Anne Arundel County. Prosecutors said
yesterday that they intend to seek a capital murder indictment to comply
with Manck's September 2004 order.
"This will be the Anne Arundel County law. And then there will be the
state's law. But since we operate in Anne Arundel County, we follow Anne
Arundel County law," said Frank R. Weathersbee, the local state's
attorney.
The attorney general's office said in a statement that it believed an
"extraordinary remedy" was needed. It said Manck acted "without authority"
and that yesterday's ruling illustrated problems caused by the state's
limited right to appeal.
Had Manck thrown out the murder indictment, prosecutors could have
appealed. But Manck dismissed only the state's notice that warns the
defense that it will seek the death penalty, which the majority said is
not subject to appeal.
The issue of what prosecutors must reveal -- and when -- could resurface
at the Court of Appeals on an appeal by a defendant who loses with the
trial judge, said Julia Doyle Bernhardt, the assistant public defender who
represented Henry in the appeal.
She agreed with Manck that prosecutors cannot obtain a murder indictment
and then decide they want to pursue the death penalty. An indictment
should say whether a case is a capital case, she said.
The dispute began last year, when Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Pamela
L. North, based on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, held that if
prosecutors wanted to continue pursuing the death penalty for a Glen
Burnie man, they had to obtain a new indictment alleging he committed the
slayings. They did.
But they maintained that the state's 30-day notification law should have
been enough.
Manck adopted North's reasoning in the Henry case. The Maryland attorney
general's office asked the state's highest court to step in because it
wanted the death penalty law to be uniform statewide.
Because evidence often is not analyzed by the time of indictment, the
state's system gives prosecutors time to decide whether to pursue a death
sentence, said Douglas F. Gansler, Montgomery County state's attorney. If
judges follow North's and Manck's lead, he said, prosecutors are likely to
file more capital cases, but based on incomplete information.
(source: The Baltimore Sun)
