Patriot Act developing decidedly un-American tilt

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
Oct. 28, 2005

In the name of fighting terror, some lawmakers have gone overboard with amendments to the U.S.A. Patriot Act. For example, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, would let federal prosecutors shop for another jury if the first panel deadlocked on a death sentence. The very notion is absurd - jury shopping for death - and the amendment should be stripped from the Patriot Act reauthorization bill.

Carter's measure would allow prosecutors to empanel a second jury and argue for death if at least one person on the original jury voted for the death penalty. Thus, an 11-1 vote recommending life in prison instead of death could be rejected in order to empanel another jury to give the prosecutor one more chance to win a death sentence. This measure would do little to actually help fight terrorism. Yet it would undermine a feature that strengthens U.S. jurisprudence and makes our system an international model.

Under U.S. law, prosecutors must prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt; and federal juries must reach unanimous consensus on imposing the death penalty. If some jurors object to imposing death, it means the case for death wasn't demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. After all, only jurors who support the death penalty are allowed to judge death cases.

Other amendments also should be deleted from this bill. One would triple the number of terrorism-related crimes eligible for the death penalty. Another would authorize the death penalty for a person who gives money to an organization whose members kill someone, even if the contributor did not know that the organization or its members were planning to kill.

Such measures increase the chances of executing the innocent. They weaken the U.S. fight against terror and give other countries reasons to stop supporting the anti-terror campaign. These amendments have no place in the Patriot Act and should be removed.