Latest news with #EighthAmendment
Boston Globe
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Today in History: June 20, Muhammad Ali convicted of draft evasion
In 1837, Queen Victoria acceded to the British throne following the death of her uncle, King William IV. In 1893, a jury in New Bedford, Mass., found Lizzie Borden not guilty of the ax murders of her father and stepmother. In 1943, race-related rioting erupted in Detroit, Mich. Federal troops were sent in by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to quell the violence that resulted in more than 30 deaths. Advertisement In 1947, gangster Benjamin 'Bugsy' Siegel was shot dead at the Beverly Hills, Calif., home of his girlfriend, Virginia Hill, likely at the order of mob associates. In 1967, boxer Muhammad Ali was convicted in Houston, Texas, of violating Selective Service laws by refusing to be drafted and was sentenced to five years in prison. (Ali's conviction would ultimately be overturned by the US Supreme Court). In 1972, three days after the arrest of the Watergate burglars, President Richard Nixon met at the White House with his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman; the secretly made tape recording of this meeting ended up with a notorious 18 1/2-minute gap. Advertisement In 2002, in the case Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that executing people with intellectual disabilities qualified as cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Constitutionalism — a lost sanctity
To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots. — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Any religious place of worship and its holy book are revered as sacred by their followers. In much the same way, a state and its governing document 'Constitution' holds a sacrosanct place in the hearts of their citizens and constitutionalists. Just as any adulterated alteration of holy scriptures incites the fury of the faithful; likewise, any malicious amendment to the sacred document of the 'Constitution' provokes outrage in a society that firmly believes in upholding democratic principles. The journey of constitutional process in Pakistan has been nothing short of a rollercoaster ride. From the prolonged delay in framing and adopting the first Constitution to the recurring adventurism of experimenting with the adoption of a Presidential or a Parliamentary form of government, and from the question over a Federal versus a unitary system, to the abrupt military takeovers and undemocratic overreach of power by elected civilian representatives, Pakistan's constitutional trajectory has been fraught with ambivalence. Growing up in a household where political conversations were the main course of every table-talk, I was unknowingly familiarised with unsettling phrases like 'abrogation', 'suspension', 'reframing', and the most loathed of all, the Eighth Amendment (inserted by the then military dictator, President Ziaul Haq to strengthen his grip on power and suppress political dissent) that left an unconscious, yet profound impact on my understanding of constitutionalism. As a political science student, I observed the Seventeenth Amendment saga (brought in by the then President, General Pervez Musharraf in collusion with so-called democratic-minded religious and political parties) with a personal interest from the comfort of my couch, viewing it as an academic learning experience. However, I remained oblivious of the gravity of its repercussions. Years later, after spending nearly a decade in the professional arena, the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment (introduced in the backdrop of post-9th May political and military tug-of-war) felt like a direct punch to my face – finally making me realise the devastating impact of these calculated executive and legislative maneuvers. I find myself jolted by the ongoing tremors of this Amendment – an impact intensified by the rather unfortunate than fortunate experience of being position at the heart of it all, working on matters closely tied to its aftermath. Simply put, Constitutional Amendments in the past by the military dictators were focused on consolidation and legitimisation of their authoritarian regimes, whilst the civilian governments concentrated in strengthening the executive branch. However, the insertion of the 26th Amendment has had the effect of targeted weakening of the judicial branch; it has virtually glued the judicial institution with the executive in blatant violation of the fundamental constitutional mandate of trichotomy of powers and independence of judiciary as enshrined in Clause (3) of Article 175 of the presently enforced 1973 Constitution. Reflecting on my political science lectures, I am, rightly or wrongly, reminded that the Constitution not being merely a legal document but a foundational covenant between the rulers and the ruled; valued as a social contract between the State and its citizens, if that is the correct version, then who grants corridors of power the authority to unilaterally bend its clauses while expecting absolute obedience by the governed. It is an elemental legal principle that a contract loses its legitimacy when one party manipulates its terms to its advantage while disregarding the consent of the other. With the advent of the 21st century's sophisticated standards, overt military coups becoming increasingly unpopular. In their place, a far more alarming trend of employing covert methods to dominate the ruthless game of thrones has emerged, which stems from the nations' most revered legal scripture itself. In the guise of upholding the constitutional spirit and rule of law, state actors systematically set legal machinery into motion, weaving legal frameworks into a silken trap. They wield the axe of 'amendment' like executioners, striking down democratic norms and enclosing them in a gilded cage, all under the banner of legitimate governance. Thus, authoritarian forces are granted the licence to seize power under the illusion of constitutionality, gradually hollowing out state institutions like termites devouring the foundations of a grand structure, all while flawlessly maintaining the façade of constitutional integrity. This wave of Constitutional adventurism leading us down the path of legal debacle and ultimate frustration compels me to question my very choice of entering the legal profession, especially as I stand witness to a judiciary that mirrors a disarmed soldier on the battlefield, a toothless prey confronted by a fierce and unrelenting executive. The survival of a nation does not merely depend upon its military might or economic prosperity, but hinges on an unwavering commitment to the principles enshrined in its primitive framework. The Constitution, like faith, must be honoured, protected and upheld – for once its sanctity is lost, the risk is not just the erosion of legal provisions, but the very soul of the nation itself.
Hamilton Spectator
4 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Man formerly on death row can't serve 2 life terms at the same time, Tennessee Supreme Court rules
MEMPHIS, Tenn., (AP) — A Tennessee judge did not have the authority to give Pervis Payne, who was formerly on death row, concurrent sentences of life in prison after ruling that he was intellectually disabled and could not be executed for two 1987 killings, the state Supreme Court said Monday. The court's ruling said a Memphis judge lacked the jurisdiction to give Payne two life sentences to run at the same time rather than one after the other. The concurrent sentences allowed Payne to be eligible for parole in 2026 — 30 years earlier than if the sentences were consecutive. The Supreme Court did not issue the consecutive life sentences for Payne in its ruling. Instead, it returned the matter to the trial court in Memphis for further proceedings. Payne had been on death row for the killings of a woman and her 2-year-old daughter. In January 2022, Judge Paula Skahan sentenced Payne to concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole after ruling in November 2021 that his death sentences must be vacated because he was intellectually disabled. The case has drawn national attention from anti-death-penalty activists and included the involvement of the Innocence Project, which argues for the use of DNA testing in cases claiming wrongful conviction. DNA tests failed to exonerate Payne. Skahan's ruling that Payne should be removed from death row was based on a Tennessee law passed earlier in 2021 that made prohibiting the execution of intellectually disabled people retroactive to past cases. Before the 2021 law, Tennessee had no mechanism for people to reopen a case to press an intellectual disability claim. Executions of intellectually disabled people were ruled unconstitutional in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court found they violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Payne, 58, was convicted of first-degree murder for the killings of Charisse Christopher and her 2-year-old daughter, Lacie Jo, who were repeatedly stabbed in their Millington apartment and left in a pool of blood. Christopher's son, Nicholas, who was 3 at the time, also was stabbed but survived. Payne, who is Black, has always maintained his innocence. He told police he was at Christopher's apartment building to meet his girlfriend when he heard the mother, who was white, screaming and tried to help. He said he panicked when he saw a white police officer and ran away. During his murder trial, prosecutors said Payne was high on cocaine and looking for sex when he killed Christopher and her daughter in a 'drug-induced frenzy.' Prosecutors said the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Payne as the killer. However, evidence presented by two experts showed Payne was intellectually disabled, while Payne's supporters said he had taken significant steps in his rehabilitation while serving three decades in prison. It was not immediately clear Monday when Payne would be eligible for parole under the Supreme Court's decision. A hearing must be set to address the new ruling. Payne's lawyer, Kelley Henry, has pushed for Payne's full exoneration. 'Pervis Payne remains incarcerated for a crime he did not commit,' she said in an email Monday. 'We will continue to fight for his freedom and to bring him home to his family.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Man formerly on death row can't serve 2 life terms at the same time, Tennessee Supreme Court rules
MEMPHIS, Tenn., (AP) — A Tennessee judge did not have the authority to give Pervis Payne, who was formerly on death row, concurrent sentences of life in prison after ruling that he was intellectually disabled and could not be executed for two 1987 killings, the state Supreme Court said Monday. The court's ruling said a Memphis judge lacked the jurisdiction to give Payne two life sentences to run at the same time rather than one after the other. The concurrent sentences allowed Payne to be eligible for parole in 2026 — 30 years earlier than if the sentences were consecutive. The Supreme Court did not issue the consecutive life sentences for Payne in its ruling. Instead, it returned the matter to the trial court in Memphis for further proceedings. Payne had been on death row for the killings of a woman and her 2-year-old daughter. In January 2022, Judge Paula Skahan sentenced Payne to concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole after ruling in November 2021 that his death sentences must be vacated because he was intellectually disabled. The case has drawn national attention from anti-death-penalty activists and included the involvement of the Innocence Project, which argues for the use of DNA testing in cases claiming wrongful conviction. DNA tests failed to exonerate Payne. Skahan's ruling that Payne should be removed from death row was based on a Tennessee law passed earlier in 2021 that made prohibiting the execution of intellectually disabled people retroactive to past cases. Before the 2021 law, Tennessee had no mechanism for people to reopen a case to press an intellectual disability claim. Executions of intellectually disabled people were ruled unconstitutional in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court found they violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Payne, 58, was convicted of first-degree murder for the killings of Charisse Christopher and her 2-year-old daughter, Lacie Jo, who were repeatedly stabbed in their Millington apartment and left in a pool of blood. Christopher's son, Nicholas, who was 3 at the time, also was stabbed but survived. Payne, who is Black, has always maintained his innocence. He told police he was at Christopher's apartment building to meet his girlfriend when he heard the mother, who was white, screaming and tried to help. He said he panicked when he saw a white police officer and ran away. During his murder trial, prosecutors said Payne was high on cocaine and looking for sex when he killed Christopher and her daughter in a 'drug-induced frenzy.' Prosecutors said the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Payne as the killer. However, evidence presented by two experts showed Payne was intellectually disabled, while Payne's supporters said he had taken significant steps in his rehabilitation while serving three decades in prison. Payne's lawyer, Kelley Henry, has pushed for Payne's full exoneration. 'Pervis Payne remains incarcerated for a crime he did not commit,' she said in an email Monday. 'We will continue to fight for his freedom and to bring him home to his family.'
Winnipeg Free Press
4 days ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Man formerly on death row can't serve 2 life terms at the same time, Tennessee Supreme Court rules
MEMPHIS, Tenn., (AP) — A Tennessee judge did not have the authority to give Pervis Payne, who was formerly on death row, concurrent sentences of life in prison after ruling that he was intellectually disabled and could not be executed for two 1987 killings, the state Supreme Court said Monday. The court's ruling said a Memphis judge lacked the jurisdiction to give Payne two life sentences to run at the same time rather than one after the other. The concurrent sentences allowed Payne to be eligible for parole in 2026 — 30 years earlier than if the sentences were consecutive. The Supreme Court did not issue the consecutive life sentences for Payne in its ruling. Instead, it returned the matter to the trial court in Memphis for further proceedings. Payne had been on death row for the killings of a woman and her 2-year-old daughter. In January 2022, Judge Paula Skahan sentenced Payne to concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole after ruling in November 2021 that his death sentences must be vacated because he was intellectually disabled. The case has drawn national attention from anti-death-penalty activists and included the involvement of the Innocence Project, which argues for the use of DNA testing in cases claiming wrongful conviction. DNA tests failed to exonerate Payne. Skahan's ruling that Payne should be removed from death row was based on a Tennessee law passed earlier in 2021 that made prohibiting the execution of intellectually disabled people retroactive to past cases. Before the 2021 law, Tennessee had no mechanism for people to reopen a case to press an intellectual disability claim. Executions of intellectually disabled people were ruled unconstitutional in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court found they violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Payne, 58, was convicted of first-degree murder for the killings of Charisse Christopher and her 2-year-old daughter, Lacie Jo, who were repeatedly stabbed in their Millington apartment and left in a pool of blood. Christopher's son, Nicholas, who was 3 at the time, also was stabbed but survived. Payne, who is Black, has always maintained his innocence. He told police he was at Christopher's apartment building to meet his girlfriend when he heard the mother, who was white, screaming and tried to help. He said he panicked when he saw a white police officer and ran away. During his murder trial, prosecutors said Payne was high on cocaine and looking for sex when he killed Christopher and her daughter in a 'drug-induced frenzy.' Prosecutors said the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Payne as the killer. However, evidence presented by two experts showed Payne was intellectually disabled, while Payne's supporters said he had taken significant steps in his rehabilitation while serving three decades in prison. It was not immediately clear Monday when Payne would be eligible for parole under the Supreme Court's decision. A hearing must be set to address the new ruling. Payne's lawyer, Kelley Henry, has pushed for Payne's full exoneration. 'Pervis Payne remains incarcerated for a crime he did not commit,' she said in an email Monday. 'We will continue to fight for his freedom and to bring him home to his family.'
