This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/politics/supreme-court-stephen-breyer-capital-punishment-california.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
In California Case, Justice Breyer Assails Capital Punishment In California Case, Justice Breyer Assails Capital Punishment
(35 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — Renewing his attack on capital punishment, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent on Monday that his colleagues were wrong to turn down a challenge to California’s death penalty system, which he called unreliable, arbitrary and plagued by “unconscionably long delays.”WASHINGTON — Renewing his attack on capital punishment, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent on Monday that his colleagues were wrong to turn down a challenge to California’s death penalty system, which he called unreliable, arbitrary and plagued by “unconscionably long delays.”
The case was brought by Richard D. Boyer, who has cited the stress of his long wait on death row after being sentenced in 1984 for the murders of an elderly couple in Fullerton, Calif. Referring to the conclusions of a state commission in 2008, Justice Breyer said the delays in Mr. Boyer’s case were the product of a dysfunctional system.The case was brought by Richard D. Boyer, who has cited the stress of his long wait on death row after being sentenced in 1984 for the murders of an elderly couple in Fullerton, Calif. Referring to the conclusions of a state commission in 2008, Justice Breyer said the delays in Mr. Boyer’s case were the product of a dysfunctional system.
“More California death row inmates had committed suicide than had been executed by the state,” he wrote. “Indeed, only a small, apparently random set of death row inmates had been executed. A vast and growing majority remained incarcerated, like Boyer, on death row under a threat of execution for ever longer periods of time.”“More California death row inmates had committed suicide than had been executed by the state,” he wrote. “Indeed, only a small, apparently random set of death row inmates had been executed. A vast and growing majority remained incarcerated, like Boyer, on death row under a threat of execution for ever longer periods of time.”
Justice Breyer has emerged as the court’s leading critic of the death penalty. In a sweeping 46-page dissent last June, he urged the court to take a fresh look at the constitutionality of the death penalty.Justice Breyer has emerged as the court’s leading critic of the death penalty. In a sweeping 46-page dissent last June, he urged the court to take a fresh look at the constitutionality of the death penalty.
“It is highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” he wrote, referring to the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Justice Breyer said that death row exonerations were frequent, that evidence showed innocent people had been executed, that death sentences were imposed arbitrarily, and that the capital justice system was warped by racial discrimination and politics.“It is highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” he wrote, referring to the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Justice Breyer said that death row exonerations were frequent, that evidence showed innocent people had been executed, that death sentences were imposed arbitrarily, and that the capital justice system was warped by racial discrimination and politics.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also signed the June dissent. Wednesday’s two-page dissent was a sort of summary of the longer one, and this time Justice Breyer wrote only for himself. The court gave no reason for rejecting the new case, Boyer v. David, No 15-8119. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also signed the June dissent. Wednesday’s two-page dissent was a sort of summary of the longer one, and this time Justice Breyer wrote only for himself. The court gave no reason for rejecting the new case, Boyer v. David, No. 15-8119.
Justice Breyer stressed a theme that has long troubled him: that long delays between death sentences and executions might themselves violate the Eighth Amendment.Justice Breyer stressed a theme that has long troubled him: that long delays between death sentences and executions might themselves violate the Eighth Amendment.
“It is difficult to deny the suffering inherent in a prolonged wait for execution,” Justice Breyer wrote in a similar dissent in 1999, adding that “our Constitution was written at a time when delay between sentencing and execution could be measured in days or weeks, not decades.”“It is difficult to deny the suffering inherent in a prolonged wait for execution,” Justice Breyer wrote in a similar dissent in 1999, adding that “our Constitution was written at a time when delay between sentencing and execution could be measured in days or weeks, not decades.”
In response, Justice Clarence Thomas said he found that argument curious.In response, Justice Clarence Thomas said he found that argument curious.
“I am unaware,” Justice Thomas wrote, “of any support in the American constitutional tradition or in this court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed.”“I am unaware,” Justice Thomas wrote, “of any support in the American constitutional tradition or in this court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed.”