When your President, not to mention your House and Senate majority leaders, top administration officials, key gubernatorial candidates, etc., are all on the political and legal ropes, what do you do?
Kill more evil-doers!
Hey, it worked in Texas! Frying and lethal injecting evil-doers is what Dubya does and loves best!
The House bill for reauthorizing the Patriot Act has amendments sponsored by Rep. John Carter (Republican from Texas, of course), that would expand the number of terrorism-related offenses eligible for the death penalty from 20 to 61, and would drastically change the rules to make it easier to get a death sentence.
If this measure passes, and you unknowingly donate money to what you believe is a charity, but it turns out to be a terrorist front, YOU will be eligible for execution.
I kid you not. More below...
As WaPo reports:
Under the proposals, 41 crimes would be added to the 20 terrorism-related offenses now eligible for the federal death penalty. Prosecutors would also find it easier to impose a death sentence in cases in which the defendant did not have the intent to kill.
In one example cited by Human Rights Watch, "an individual could be sentenced to death for providing financial support to an organization whose members caused the death of another, even if this individual did not know or in any way intend that the members engage in acts of violence."
But critics are most concerned about procedural changes related to juries, including a provision that would allow a trial with fewer than 12 jurors if the court finds "good cause," with or without the agreement of the defense.
The bill would also give prosecutors a chance to try again if a jury is deadlocked over a death sentence. Currently, a hung jury at sentencing automatically results in a life sentence, which mirrors the system used by mostof the 38 states that currently allow the death penalty. Five states, including California, allow prosecutors to empanel a new jury if the first one deadlocks.
Congressman Carter believes, per his spokesman Gretchen Hamel, that the prospect of dying is a deterrent for terrorists. Um, can someone gently explain to Mr. Carter that the current crop of terrorists we are battling are suicidal.
Chicago Trib columnist Steve Chapman points out the inherently rigged game in these changes:
If the government fails to persuade the jury, but even one juror votes for the death penalty, prosecutors could convene a new jury and try again. And they could keep doing that over and over until they get the sentence they want. The new rule would be: Heads, I win; tails, we toss again.
It's hard to see the fairness in letting an institution with unlimited resources have unlimited opportunities to get its way, which is why the vast majority of states don't allow the practice. Even former U.S. Atty. Mary Jo White, who failed to get death sentences for two Al Qaeda terrorists convicted of bombing American embassies in Africa, told The New York Times, "I don't think the government should get two bites at that apple."
But the proponents of capital punishment have been driven berserk by the refusal of juries to agree on the need for more executions. Between 2001 and 2005, the Justice Department decided to seek the death penalty for 63 defendants. Juries have agreed in only 18 cases--a failure rate of 71 percent.
While we are all obsessed with the Alito nomination, let's take a reverse look at the question of "judicial activism". The conservatives claim they believe judges should not "legislate from the bench".
How about the idiots in the Republican Congress quit trying to "adjudicate from the legislature". Let juries and judges do their jobs.