Main Menu
Don‘t Let This Be You
Podcasts
Judge Crichton & Tom Pace: Website & Lethal Injection Dani Coates interview Judge Scott Crichton with Tom Pace Don't Let This Be You Judge Scott Crichton Code Opening Statement Archive ...Calendar
| November '08 | ||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S | 1 |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
View Docket
Links
Welcome to my website, www.judgescottcrichton.com. I am honored to be serving my 18th year on the Caddo bench and to be one of eleven judges for the First Judicial District. My great grandfather, Andrew J. Murff, served as a Caddo district judge a century ago, 1906-1910. Perhaps it could be said that the legal profession, in particular, the judiciary, is in my DNA!
The purpose of this website (which to my knowledge is a first of its kind for a district judge) is as follows:
- To provide litigants, lawyers and the public with basic information about Caddo District Court, emphasizing important procedural rules and providing the basics of what judges expect. There are several outlines on those subjects as well as scheduling order forms, civil and criminal jury instructions, and other materials that should provide guidance
To provide information about my professional background including the scope of work in the 1980s as a Caddo assistant district attorney and as a lawyer in private civil practice. There is also much information provided which details the teaching which I have done as well as the presentations made to various legal and civic groups. Further, there is emphasis on the importance of ethics and professionalism in this honorable profession; in that regard, you can review a presentation which I delivered about a year ago on the subject of professionalism.
Finally, to share with you the crime prevention PowerPoint program which I designed two years ago tilted “Don’t Let This Be You”. This presentation is primarily for teenagers and parents and it emphasizes certain legal concepts that are pertinent to teenagers and it focuses on consequences of violating the law. There is a video on the program as well as several radio interviews/podcasts regarding the program which will familiarize you with the components of the program in advance; you can view an upcoming schedule and receive registration information.
So, whether you are a lawyer or litigant seeking to know more about the judge assigned to your case, what a judge typically expects, some of the applicable rules of procedure or if you are a parent of a teenager desiring to know more about “Don’t Let This Be You” then this website is for you! In the feedback section, let me know what you think.
Judge Scott J. Crichton
Latest News
Thursday, Aug 28, 2008
Ruminations on Kennedy v. Louisiana
Further Erosion of the Death Penalty?
In an article published on this website on May 21, 2008, “No Requiem For the Death Penalty (Or, Lethal Injection Gets Another Shot)”[1], I wrote the following:
On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of the
The issue in Baze was whether the particular lethal injection protocol followed by the State of Kentucky is unconstitutional under the Eight Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because of the risk that the lethal injection protocol not be properly followed, resulting in significant pain. In a thoroughly researched opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, held that
Justices Scalia and Thomas issued concurring opinions in response to the concurrence of Justice Stevens. The other concurring justice was Breyer. Not surprisingly, Justices Ginsburg and Souter dissented.
On June 25, 2008 the philosophical positions of Justices Stevens and Breyer were clarified as they seemed to exit the closet and join the ranks of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer on this issue. As expected, Justice Kennedy established his position as a powerful swing vote, much like Justice Sandra Day O’Conner in previous years.
In this 5-4 decision, Kennedy v. Louisiana, ____
In Kennedy the issue was whether the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause bars the imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime does not result in the victim’s death. A slight majority held that the death penalty for rape of a child, where the child is not killed, is unconstitutional. The case was remanded to the
The case is significant in a number of respects, one of which is that it evidences further erosion of the death penalty by a majority of U.S. Supreme Court.
We recall that in 2002 the Supreme Court rendered Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, which held that the execution of mentally retarded persons violates the Eighth Amendment[2] and in 2005, the Supreme Court rendered in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 which held that execution of juveniles also violates the Eighth Amendment. Both decisions were predicated on the Supreme Court’s belief that young or mentally retarded offenders have a diminished personal responsibility for the crime of murder. In 2008, in Kennedy, the Court has further limited the type of case for which the death penalty may be imposed. Now, if an offender, with a history of being a violent sex offender, kidnaps a five year old child from the bedroom of her parents’ home in the middle of the night, rapes her repeatedly causing severe permanent physical and psychological damage and then cuts off both of her arms, this offender is ineligible for the death penalty following a full trial, due process and unanimous jury verdict no matter what the state law provides. Why? Because 5 justices out of 9 on the U.S. Supreme Court believe that it’s cruel and unusual punishment. However, if an offender rapes a victim once and immediately kills that victim, he is eligible for the death penalty. While I totally respect the rule of law and the court system in this country (and each day put my heart and soul into doing the best job I can possibly do), I respectfully submit that such apparent rationale by the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court makes little sense.
Because Kennedy is a
As a basis for finding the death penalty unconstitutional the majority wrote that a national consensus had formed against it.
Thirty-seven jurisdictions – 36 states plus the Federal Government – have the death penalty. As mentioned above, only six of those jurisdictions authorize the death penalty for the rape of a child.
That is incorrect! In 2006 Congress enacted a death penalty for soldiers who commit child rape as part of an update to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). So, notwithstanding the fact that Congressional Acts are deemed constitutional, is the High Court saying that this Act of Congress is unconstitutional although the Court did not know of its existence? In any event, the U.S. Supreme Court basis for outlawing the death penalty in every case involving the rape of a child is factually flawed. On that basis alone, the Court should grant rehearing.
Even Justice Alito missed this fundamental error; however, he issued a brilliant and stunning dissent in which he aggressively questions the soundness of the majority’s conclusions (1) to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child and (2) based on its “independent judgment”, imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”. With respect to the “national consensus”, he pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Coker v. Georgia, 433
In my May 21, 2008 “No Requiem” article, I also wrote the following:
Thus, the opinion (Baze) provides us insight into the personal and philosophical views of the justices of the Supreme Court on the issue of the death penalty in this country. While some follow the rule of law despite personal philosophy, some do not. This April 16, 2008 opinion makes it clear that, at least for a while, there will not be a requiem for the death penalty. But one can reasonably infer that if the proper issue is framed and brought before the Court it would likely be a closer vote, either 6-3 or 5-4, on whether to retain the controversial death penalty. Inasmuch as the U.S President appoints justices to the Supreme Court, in this election year given the viewpoints of this Court, some attention should perhaps be given to the presidential candidates’ views on this very important issue and their philosophy on judicial appointments to the Federal bench, particularly the Supreme Court of the
So, for now, while there is not yet a requiem for the death penalty, the Kennedy decision demonstrates further erosion and evidences that the death penalty has a diminished vitality – not based upon what the viewpoints of state legislatures or on the wisdom of the U.S. Congress but upon what five justices, all of whom were appointed by former presidents, philosophically opine about what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
That being said (and, by the way, I feel so much better exercising my First Amendment right), my job as a district judge is to apply the law impartially. The Untied States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and, though I may not always agree with each decision, I will always honor the Court and will always “support the constitution and laws of the
© 2008 Judge Scott Crichton. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Contact | Copyrights | Site Map