izmir escort izmir escort antalya escort porno jigolo izmir escort bursa escort porno izle türk porno havalandırma sistemleri porno izle takipçi satın al youtube haberleri alsancak escort bursa escort bursa escort gaziantep escort denizli escort izmir escort istanbul escort istanbul escort istanbul escort izmir escort
Florida Capital Punishment News - Page 38
Page 38 of 38 FirstFirst ... 28363738
Results 371 to 374 of 374

Thread: Florida Capital Punishment News

  1. #371
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,528
    There you go first you say you want a "True Conservative" then you say he is enough of a moderate.

    He's against freedom of speech, which is becoming a leftist staple. That is my number one issue with him.

    He says a lot of right wing things but his actions are an indication of something else.

    Hurst was a complete misinterpretation of what SCOTUS ruled, if Scott could've placed two more judges on that bench it never would've happened.
    Last edited by Mike; 02-08-2020 at 12:53 PM.
    We all live in a clown world.

  2. #372
    Senior Member Frequent Poster Neil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    376
    Yes I want a true conservative Mike. I don’t think a hardcore conservative can win in the general in anymore. That’s why I mentioned him. He’s probably the only one who can get elected in 2024.

    Now that Hurst is destroyed. The judges in conservative counties are reinstating death sentences. In liberal counties, like where Okafor is, the judge declined. I’m dying to know what the total of Florida’s death row will be at the end of the year.

    Desantis should push for non unanimous rulings. I hate the senate president.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...urt-ruling.amp

  3. #373
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    14,940
    Florida Supreme Court: Major death penalty ruling will not be revisted

    The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday refused to reconsider a ruling that said unanimous jury recommendations are not necessary before death sentences can be imposed.

    The court, in a 4-1 decision, rejected a request for a rehearing by attorneys for Death Row inmate Mark Anthony Poole. As is common, the decision did not explain the courts reasoning.

    Chief Justice Charles Canady and justices Ricky Polston, Alan Lawson and Carlos Muniz were in the majority, while Justice Jorge Labarga supported granting a rehearing. The Supreme Court issued a ruling in January that said justices got it wrong in 2016 when they required changes such as unanimous jury recommendations on death sentences.

    The January decision reversing course reinstated a death sentence for Poole, who was convicted in Polk County in the 2001 first-degree murder of Noah Scott, the attempted murder and sexual battery of Loretta White, armed burglary and armed robbery.

    A jury in 2011 recommended by a vote of 11-1 that Poole should be sentenced to death --- a sentence that a judge imposed. But based on the Florida Supreme Courts 2016 decision, Pooles death sentence was later vacated because of the lack of a unanimous jury recommendation.

    In a filing in February opposing the request for a rehearing at the Supreme Court, Attorney General Ashley Moodys office argued that unanimous jury recommendations are not required under the U.S. Constitutions Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.

    The decisions this year came after a long, complicated series of issues that stemmed from a January 2016 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case dubbed Hurst v. Florida. That ruling found the states death-penalty system was unconstitutional because it gave too much authority to judges, instead of juries, in imposing death sentences.

    The Florida Supreme Court in October 2016 interpreted and applied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, including requiring unanimous jury recommendations.

    In 2017, the Legislature passed a law that required unanimous jury recommendations as it complied with the state Supreme Court ruling. That law remains in place.

    (source: fox35orlando.com)
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    "Men have called me mad; but the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence"
    - Edgar Allan Poe

  4. #374
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,528
    Florida justices reverse course on death row disabilities

    By Jim Saunders
    The Ledger

    Saying it made a “clear error” in 2016, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday scrapped a decision that gave some Death Row inmates another chance to argue that they should be shielded from execution because they have intellectual disabilities.

    The ruling came a week after justices tossed out a decades-old legal standard about circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, with both opinions reflecting the court’s conservative shift since early last year — and its willingness to rip up old decisions.

    Thursday’s ruling came in an appeal by Death Row inmate Harry Franklin Phillips, who was convicted in the 1982 murder of a probation supervisor in Miami and who contends he should not be executed because of an intellectual disability. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Phillips failed to meet legal tests to prove such a disability.

    But the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014, in a separate case, rejected part of Florida’s tests for determining whether defendants have intellectual disabilities. That part of the tests set a cutoff score of 70 on IQ exams. The U.S. Supreme Court said the state could not use such a “rigid rule.”

    The Florida Supreme Court in 2016 ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court decision should be applied retroactively, which could give longtime inmates such as Phillips another chance to prove they have intellectual disabilities and should be spared execution.

    Thursday’s 4-1 ruling, however, said that applying the decision retroactively was erroneous.

    The majority described the U.S. Supreme Court decision as an “evolutionary refinement” of procedures needed to comply with a constitutional ban on executing people with intellectual disabilities. As a result, it said the change did not need to be retroactively applied to inmates such as Phillips.

    “It (the U.S Supreme Court decision) merely clarified the manner in which courts are to determine whether a capital defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty,” said Thursday’s opinion shared by Chief Justice Charles Canady and justices Ricky Polston, Alan Lawson and Carlos Muniz. “It did not invalidate any statutory means for imposing the death sentence, nor did it prohibit the states from imposing the death penalty against any new category of persons. Before Walls (the 2016 ruling in a case known as Walls v. State), this court had been clear that evolutionary refinements do not apply retroactively.”

    But Justice Jorge Labarga wrote a sharply worded dissent, which he said sought to “underscore the unraveling of sound legal holdings in this most consequential area of the law.”

    “Yet again, this court has removed an important safeguard in maintaining the integrity of Florida’s death penalty jurisprudence,” Labarga wrote. “The result is an increased risk that certain individuals may be executed, even if they are intellectually disabled — a risk that this court mitigated just three years ago by holding that the decision in Hall v. Florida (the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case) is to be retroactively applied.”

    Labarga was part of a five-member majority in the 2016 ruling on retroactivity, while Canady and Polston dissented. Lawson and Muniz were not on the court at the time. Two seats are currently vacant.

    But the Supreme Court has undergone a massive philosophical change since January 2019, when longtime justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince were forced to step down because of a mandatory retirement age. Pariente, Lewis, Quince and Labarga were part of a generally liberal bloc that made up a majority of the court.

    Lawson’s appointment to replace former Justice James E.C. Perry in late 2016 created what was often a 4-3 split on the court. But that changed last year when Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Muniz, Robert Luck and Barbara Lagoa to replace Pariente, Lewis and Quince.

    While Luck and Lagoa have since become federal appellate judges, Muniz has combined with Canady, Polston and Lawson to create a solid conservative majority that has shown a willingness to overturn — or, in legal terms, “recede from” — earlier decisions by the court.

    Last week, over the objections of Labarga, the court rejected a longstanding legal standard used in criminal cases that only involve circumstantial evidence. The majority said the change would lead to Florida joining federal courts and most other states in how judges weigh such cases, but Labarga wrote that the move eliminated a “reasonable safeguard” in criminal cases.

    In Thursday’s decision, the majority pointed, in part, to the value of maintaining “finality” in Phillips’ case.

    “The surviving victims, society-at-large and the state all have a weighty interest in not having Phillips’ death sentence set aside for the relitigation of his claim of intellectual disability based on Hall’s evolutionary refinement in the law,” the majority wrote.

    But Labarga bristled at that reasoning.

    “In justifying its holding, the majority discusses the need for finality in the judicial process,” Labarga wrote. “I agree that finality is a fundamental component of a functioning judicial system. However, we simply cannot be blinded by an interest in finality when that interest leaves open the genuine possibility that an individual will be executed because he is not permitted consideration of his intellectual disability claim.”

    https://www.theledger.com/news/20200...w-disabilities
    We all live in a clown world.

Page 38 of 38 FirstFirst ... 28363738

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •