|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 6, 2003 18:12:54 GMT -6
Personally I think yes:
1. A jury of 12 Puerto Ricans will have to unanimously agree to impose the death penalty.
2. The Federal Appeals Court has upheld the constitutionality of the federal death penalty in US territories.
3. Puerto Rico has voluntarily decided to put itself under US sovereignty. If it doesn't like US federal laws it can urge Congress, through its "delegate", to change the laws or it can opt for independence.
Puerto Rico Death Penalty Case Draws Fire
By all accounts, the crime was horrific. Kidnappers demanding a $1 million ransom killed and dismembered a suburban grocer in 1998 after his family alerted police.
Now, federal prosecutors in this U.S. territory are seeking the death penalty for the accused killers, a strategy that is stoking debate about the Caribbean island's relationship with the United States. That debate already has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Most people here contend that seeking the death penalty in the trial starting Monday infringes on Puerto Ricans' right to self-government and violates their constitutional ban on capital punishment. Puerto Rico carried out its last execution in 1927.
"It's not right for the U.S. to impose a law that Puerto Ricans had no hand in crafting," said territorial Sen. Fernando Martin, a member of the Independence Party.
The island's 4 million people are American citizens, but have no vote in Congress.
The Puerto Rico Bar Association, two anti-death penalty groups and defense attorneys also argued that the death penalty could not be sought because the island's constitution banned it. Their argument ultimately was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the island is subject to federal law.
"We do not believe in capital punishment and we feel that what has happened is an affront to our relationship (with the United States)," said Arturo Luis Davila-Toro, president of the Puerto Rico Bar Association.
Gov. Sila Calderon, who has called capital punishment immoral, said it would be inappropriate for her to intervene. However, her mentor, former Gov. Rafael Hernandez Colon, said the case exemplifies why his political party seeks more self-governing powers in the commonwealth's current arrangement with Washington.
Hector "Gordo" Acosta Martinez and Joel Rivera Alejandro are accused of kidnapping Jorge Hernandez Diaz during the night of Feb. 11, 1998, as he left his store in the San Juan suburb of Rio Piedras. The grocer's kidnappers warned he would be killed and "cut to pieces" if his family notified authorities or refused to pay the ransom.
When they learned police were investigating, the kidnappers shot the grocer, hacked off his head and limbs, and dumped the body parts along a road.
The defendants are charged with first-degree murder and extortion.
This is the 1st of 59 cases in Puerto Rico in which federal prosecutors have invoked the 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act, which broadened the range of crimes punishable by death.
Puerto Rico abolished capital punishment in 1929, two years after farmworker Pascual Ramos was executed for beheading his boss with a machete. The U.S. military government had executed a total of 23 people -- mostly poor or illiterate, and black -- since American troops seized the island in 1898 during the Spanish-American War.
Chief U.S. District Judge Hector Laffitte has imposed a gag order on prosecutors and defense attorneys involved in the case.
But Rivera Alejandro's lawyer, Rafael Castro Lang, has argued that the case should be taken out of federal court, saying it is there only because prosecutors contend the grocer was involved in interstate commerce.
The U.S. Supreme Court became involved after Puerto Rican Judge Salvador Casellas in 2000 ruled in favor of an argument by the suspects' defense attorneys, the bar association and anti-death penalty groups.
The judge agreed that applying the death penalty would violate Puerto Rico's constitution and the federal statute concerning its status as a self-governing entity.
However, that decision was overturned a year later by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which ruled that Puerto Rico is subject to federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision.
If Acosta Martinez and Rivera Alejandro are convicted and sentenced to death, they will not be executed in Puerto Rico, prosecutors have said. Rather, they will die by lethal injection at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2003 9:27:04 GMT -6
To be honest, I've always been a little confused about the status of puerto rico. It's not a state, of course, and gets no representation in congress. But they are still subject to our laws? What exactly is the benefit of them NOT asking for independence? In other words, what benefit do they get from being under U.S. jurisdiction? I think the answers to those questions would determine whether or not they should be subject to the federal DP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 7, 2003 11:19:20 GMT -6
Puerto Ricans are American citizens. They have all the rights of American citizenship. They can move anywhere and work anywhere in the United States.
Puerto Rico itself is a self-governing "Commonwealth" but under US sovereignty with the US responsible for security, defence and foreign affairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jul 7, 2003 11:26:42 GMT -6
To be honest, I've always been a little confused about the status of puerto rico. It's not a state, of course, and gets no representation in congress. But they are still subject to our laws? What exactly is the benefit of them NOT asking for independence? In other words, what benefit do they get from being under U.S. jurisdiction? I think the answers to those questions would determine whether or not they should be subject to the federal DP.  There has been a movement is PR for years to ask for independence it never musters up very much support. There has also been a movement to ask for statehood but it never musters up enough support to pass although it has come close several times. It seems most people in PR are happy with the way things are. They have almost as many rights as a state does and as individuals they have all the same rights as any other US citizen. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jul 7, 2003 18:23:06 GMT -6
There has been a movement is PR for years to ask for independence it never musters up very much support. There has also been a movement to ask for statehood but it never musters up enough support to pass although it has come close several times. It seems most people in PR are happy with the way things are. They have almost as many rights as a state does and as individuals they have all the same rights as any other US citizen. If RED were still around he could answer this better than I can, since he used to live in Puerto Rico. But I have visited PR twice in the past 6 months or so, and being curious about this issue, I talked to a few people about it. Actually, the opinion regarding statehood is split pretty much evenly. One of my drivers explained it very well when he told me that most people would like to be a state, on principal, but they are against it because they already have the benefits afforded to states by the federal government, yet they do not have to pay the taxes. PR is exempt from IRS code and its citizens cannot vote in US presidential elections. However, they do have federal funds for highways, national parks, postal service, Social Security, etc. Having said that, the highway system in and around San Juan was terrible - rather scary. They also have representation in Congress but it is non-voting (whatever that means). welcome.topuertorico.org/government.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jul 7, 2003 18:31:49 GMT -6
It has been many years since I was in PR around 1976 or so. There was an active movement to make PR an independent country but it was mostly underground and never had much support. The last I heard mmost of the members had ties to criminal orginizations and were in prison. The movement is strong in the prisons, but not really any where else. The rest of the people seemed to like it fine the way it was. I knew several Marines from PR and they always said that the USVI would become a state before PR. I do not see it happening to soon the benifits do not out weigh the losses |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2003 18:43:27 GMT -6
To be honest, I've always been a little confused about the status of Puerto Rico. It's not a state, of course, and gets no representation in congress. But they are still subject to our laws? What exactly is the benefit of them NOT asking for independence? In other words, what benefit do they get from being under U.S. jurisdiction? I think the answers to those questions would determine whether or not they should be subject to the federal DP. I read an article once in National Geographic (not 100% sure) it was about the move for independence in PR, most people there are not in favor for the reason that they depend heavily upon the federal government for most of their income on the island. Allot of it is based upon social assistance. I also read another piece about that weapons training ground that they were always protesting about. When the Navy shut it down, and moved to Florida for the tests, they where then complaining about the lose of income. |
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jul 7, 2003 18:47:30 GMT -6
I also read another piece about that weapons training ground that they were always protesting about. When the Navy shut it down, and moved to Florida for the tests, they where then complaining about the lose of income. That was Veagas island and that is where I was. It had been a training ground for a long time with no problems. I was TAD there as part of an inspection team and got to the main island for about 5 hours liberty, then had to report back to go to lovely Cuba. Gitmo bay. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jul 7, 2003 18:56:49 GMT -6
I read an article once in National Geographic (not 100% sure) it was about the move for independence in PR, most people there are not in favor for the reason that they depend heavily upon the federal government for most of their income on the island. Allot of it is based upon social assistance. I also read another piece about that weapons training ground that they were always protesting about. When the Navy shut it down, and moved to Florida for the tests, they where then complaining about the lose of income. The most recent poll information I could find says: In June 1998, a San Juan Star newspaper poll showed Puerto Ricans are deeply divided over the issue, with 40.9 percent favoring statehood, 40.2 percent commonwealth and 7.6 percent independence." --Miami Herald, July 15, 1998 The site that I found this on has some REALLY interesting statistics regarding what statehood would mean. www.nationalcenter.org/PuertoRicoFacts898.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2003 4:53:04 GMT -6
There has been a movement is PR for years to ask for independence it never musters up very much support. There has also been a movement to ask for statehood but it never musters up enough support to pass although it has come close several times. It seems most people in PR are happy with the way things are. They have almost as many rights as a state does and as individuals they have all the same rights as any other US citizen. They don't get to vote, do they? If they can't vote, I don't think they should be subject to the DP. mainly because it's a pretty important issue, and if it is going to affect them personally, they should at least have the option to vote against the people who support it. |
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jul 8, 2003 7:04:23 GMT -6
They don't get to vote, do they? If they can't vote, I don't think they should be subject to the DP. mainly because it's a pretty important issue, and if it is going to affect them personally, they should at least have the option to vote against the people who support it. They can vote in local elections. However no they can not vote in Federal elections and they have chosen not to. Since it is a choice they made then they get to live by their decission. If they had pettioned for statehood and been turned down I might agree, but that is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by GlennF on Jul 8, 2003 9:27:23 GMT -6
Strange isn't it, you hear about the Puerto Rico Bar Association, two anti-death penalty groups, defense attorneys, Gov. Sila Calderon or the former Governor R. Colon all being against the imposition of the death penalty. Something is missing in this article; WHAT DO THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT? Obviously this question is all too often "conveniently" forgotten.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 8, 2003 17:07:03 GMT -6
WHAT DO THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT? Obviously this question is all too often "conveniently" forgotten.[/quote]
A jury composed of Puerto Ricans who must unanimously agree on the death penalty will be a good indication of that.
But rest assured, if the death penalty is imposed in this case the "antis" will only scream all the louder about how this "violates" Puerto Rico's wishes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2003 17:14:37 GMT -6
A jury composed of Puerto Ricans who must unanimously agree on the death penalty will be a good indication of that. Not necessarily. Any good lawyer can find twelve people who are for the DP, regardless of location. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 8, 2003 18:44:02 GMT -6
Any good lawyer can find twelve people who are for the DP, regardless of location. Both the defence and the prosecution have equal say as to who makes up a jury. A jury is often the best representation of the community and its values. The federal death penalty law requires the unanimous agreement of the jury to impose a sentence of death. Thats a very high bar. When a federal death sentence is imposed, you can be as sure as is possible to be that the community's views are likely reflected. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2003 4:50:53 GMT -6
Both the defence and the prosecution have equal say as to who makes up a jury. A jury is often the best representation of the community and its values. The federal death penalty law requires the unanimous agreement of the jury to impose a sentence of death. Thats a very high bar. When a federal death sentence is imposed, you can be as sure as is possible to be that the community's views are likely reflected. Look at it this way, even in a trial here in the US, any DP trial is going to be made up of only DP supporters. I've been told several times that I will never serve on a jury in a DP case, because I'm against it. Each side is only allowed to kick out a certain number of people. Even if the area happens to be strongly anti DP, it's unlikely that any antis will be on the jury. Incidentally, I suspect that puerto rico MAY be mostly anti, because if I remember correctly, it's a largely catholic area. But don't quote me on that - I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 9, 2003 6:34:29 GMT -6
Yes Puerto Rico is mostly Catholic.
I think if a community is anti-death penalty, it will be difficult to get a jury to impose a death sentence. This has been found to be the case in comparing death penalty cases in US counties that are Catholic vs. those that are not. In some counties in the southwest US (Texas and New Mexico), there have been no death sentences at all if I remember correctly.
I would think that the sentiment of the community usually comes through regardless of what happens in jury selection. People aren't necessarily fully honest or forthcoming about their real views on matters like capital punishment or those views may not be fully formed. But those views come through once the decision actually has to be made.
|
|
There has been a movement is PR for years to ask for independence it never musters up very much support. There has also been a movement to ask for statehood but it never musters up enough support to pass although it has come close several times. It seems most people in PR are happy with the way things are. They have almost as many rights as a state does and as individuals they have all the same rights as any other US citizen. 
