FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Trying the Dead

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

“Hanging is the worst use a man can be put to.”

Sir Henry Wotton, The Disparity Between Buckingham and Essex (1651)

It is not often that one is inclined to look to other countries to see if there are procedures that could be usefully introduced into our own system of jurisprudence.  Indeed, there is considerable controversy as to whether it is ever appropriate to look to the practices in other countries to see how particular laws might be applied in our own country.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has opined on more than one occasion that what other countries do should have no bearing on how our courts rule in particular cases.  In a 2005 case in which the Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile killers, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority  said that

“the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty. . . . .[T]he Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’. . .[T]he United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18. . . . ”

Justice Scalia objected to the majority’s invocation of  foreign law in arriving at its decision saying, among other things, that “the basic premise of the Court’s argument-that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world-ought to be rejected out of hand.”

It is not the purpose of this column to take sides in the ongoing debate about the applicability of foreign laws to our own justice system but rather to suggest that at least one recent example of a foreign proceeding might be worth imitating in the United States. Our instructor in this procedure is Sergei L. Magnitsky and the process entitled to thoughtful consideration is found in Russia.

Mr. Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who was arrested for allegedly having tried to expose a tax fraud perpetrated by officialdom.  He said that certain interior officials had embezzled $230 million from the Russian Treasury.  Arrested in 2008, he died in prison in 2009.  His family said that he had not received proper medical care.

Mr. Magnitsky has now been dead for more than 2 years.  In early February it was announced that the government intended to try Mr. Magnitsky for tax evasion, the offense for which he had been arrested, notwithstanding the fact that he was dead.  According to reports, this would be the first posthumous prosecution ever to take place in Russia.  Russian officials explained  it would permit relatives and supporters to clear his name. or, alternatively, vindicate the officials who had been accused of corruption.

The government recognizes that this is a somewhat unusual procedure and sent a letter to Mr. Magnitsky’s mother offering to drop the case if relatives had no “desire to protect the honor and dignity of the deceased.”  As of this time there is no word on whether she thinks the trial should proceed or whether she is content to have her son remembered as an accused man rather than a victim of a false accusation.

The question readers are no doubt asking themselves is how this foreign procedure could be applied to United States proceedings.  The answer is by adopting the Russian procedure in death penalty cases.

One of the arguments against the death penalty is that once it has been administered the results are final and the case is over.  There is no way for someone who has been executed to clear his name.  Troy Davis, formerly of Savannah, Georgia, for example, was on death row for many years.  A large contingent of prominent citizens had come to his defense asserting that he was not guilty of the crime for which he was to be executed.  Among his defenders were former president, Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI (who opposes the death penalty was well as contraception), former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Norman Fletcher and other prominent citizens. Appeals exhausted, Mr. Davis was executed September 20, 2011.  Here is where the Russian example could usefully be invoked.

When it is learned that an innocent person has been the beneficiary of the death penalty, adopting the Russian practice, the decedent’s family could, if there were new evidence or old evidence that the courts had refused to consider, demand a posthumous trial of the decedent in order to clear the decedent’s name.  Legal purists might worry about double jeopardy in trying someone a second time for a crime for which the decedent has already been executed, but that concern falls of its own weight when one realizes that nothing bad can happen to the accused since it has already happened.  But it would help to make the death penalty considerably less final since the execution would not deprive the family of the chance to clear the defendant’s  name.

Sadly, given Justice Scalia’s fondness for the death penalty and his dislike of foreign law, the practice is not likely to be adopted in the United States.  A pity that.

Christopher Brauchli is an attorney living in Boulder, Colorado. He can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail