Judge Finds Federal Executions Unconstitutional

Mon Jul 1,12:40 PM ET

By Gail Appleson, Law Correspondent

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A trial judge on Monday became
the first U.S. judge to declare the current federal
death penalty unconstitutional, calling it tantamount
to "state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings."

Photos

Reuters Photo
U.S. District Judge Rakoff, who became the focus of
heated national debate when he warned in April that he
might rule against federal executions, said research
showed that innocent people are being killed without
the opportunity for exoneration.

"The unacceptably high rate at which innocent persons
are convicted of capital crimes, when coupled with the
frequently prolonged delays before such errors are
detected...compels the conclusion that execution under
the Federal Death Penalty Act...denies due process
and, indeed, is tantamount to foreseeable,
state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings," said
Rakoff.

A spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office
did not have an immediate comment.

However, legal experts believe the ruling will be
appealed. If it is upheld by the U.S. 2nd Circuit
Court of Appeals, it could stop federal executions in
New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

It would have no effect on cases in state courts in
the 38 states that have capital punishment.

Although it is unclear what long-term impact Rakoff's
decision will have, death penalty opponents hailed the
ruling as a sign of that the nation's judiciary was
beginning to follow their views.

"Judges are starting to realize what many people in
the American public realize ...The system is
irreparably flawed," said David Elliot, spokesman for
the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.
"It's been proven that the death penalty is reserved
for people of color, people who can't afford a good
lawyer, people who are on the margins of society."

Two states, Maryland and Illinois, have already
declared moratoriums on executions pending review of
the system's fairness on racial and geographic
grounds. The American Bar Association has supported a
moratorium on federal executions since 1997.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites)
ruled that executing the mentally retarded violates
the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment
in a landmark ruling striking down laws in 20 states.

By a 6-3 vote, the nation's highest court said a
national consensus had emerged to declare
unconstitutional such executions as excessive
punishment, based on evolving standards of decency.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that despite
these actions, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (
news - web sites) is aggressively pursuing the federal
death penalty and frequently overruling his own
prosecutors in the process, according to records and
public officials.

In the case before Rakoff, two alleged drug dealers
are scheduled go on trial in Manhattan on September 3
for the killing of a government informant. Prosecutors
planned to seek the death penalty if the men were
convicted.

When Rakoff issued his preliminary finding in April,
he gave prosecutors time to file papers challenging
his reasoning. However, the judge soundly rejected
their arguments.

In one of the government's challenges, prosecutors
argued that the U.S. Congress that enacted the Federal
Death Penalty Act in 1994 fully debated whether the
act should go into effect despite the risk that
innocent people might be killed.

"Congress determined that enactment was warranted,
based at least in part upon a balancing of a
defendant's rights against the rights of innocent
victims," prosecutors argued.

But Rakoff said the government's showing in support of
these claims was "wholly inadequate.

"The simple fact is that none of the committee reports
that comprise the primary legislative history of the
Federal Death Penalty Act contains even a single
passage supporting the Government's claim," Rakoff
said.