2008 Woodie Awards
Patriot Act Has Un-American Tilt
Editorial Staff: Miami Herald
Issue date: 11/7/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
In the name of fighting terror, some lawmakers have gone overboard with amendments to the USA Patriot Act. For example, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, would let prosecutors shop for another jury if the first panel deadlocked on a death sentence. The very notion of jury shopping for death is absurd, and the amendment should be stripped from the Patriot Act reauthorization bill.
Carter's measure would allow prosecutors to empanel a second jury and argue for death if at least one person on the original jury voted for the death penalty. Thus, an 11-1 vote recommending life in prison instead of death could be rejected in order to empanel another jury to give the prosecutor one more chance to win a death sentence. This measure would do little to actually help fight terrorism. Yet it would undermine a feature that strengthens US jurisprudence and makes our system an international model.
Under US law, prosecutors must prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and federal juries must reach unanimous consensus on imposing the death penalty. If some jurors object to imposing death, it means the case for death was not demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. After all, only jurors who support the death penalty are allowed to judge death cases.
Other amendments also should be deleted from this bill. One would triple the number of terrorism-related crimes eligible for the death penalty. Another would authorize the death penalty for a person who gives money to an organization whose members kill someone, even if the contributor did not know that the organization or its members were planning to kill.
Such measures increase the chances of executing the innocent. They weaken the US fight against terror and give other countries reasons to stop supporting the anti-terror campaign. These amendments have no place in the Patriot Act and should be removed.
Carter's measure would allow prosecutors to empanel a second jury and argue for death if at least one person on the original jury voted for the death penalty. Thus, an 11-1 vote recommending life in prison instead of death could be rejected in order to empanel another jury to give the prosecutor one more chance to win a death sentence. This measure would do little to actually help fight terrorism. Yet it would undermine a feature that strengthens US jurisprudence and makes our system an international model.
Under US law, prosecutors must prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and federal juries must reach unanimous consensus on imposing the death penalty. If some jurors object to imposing death, it means the case for death was not demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. After all, only jurors who support the death penalty are allowed to judge death cases.
Other amendments also should be deleted from this bill. One would triple the number of terrorism-related crimes eligible for the death penalty. Another would authorize the death penalty for a person who gives money to an organization whose members kill someone, even if the contributor did not know that the organization or its members were planning to kill.
Such measures increase the chances of executing the innocent. They weaken the US fight against terror and give other countries reasons to stop supporting the anti-terror campaign. These amendments have no place in the Patriot Act and should be removed.