The experts had plenty to say last week about the Supreme Court’s ruling that judges can’t sentence a person to death based on information the jury didn’t weigh. Headlines across America blared, "Only juries can impose death penalty," and "Supreme Court overturns death sentence law in five states." Media pundits and others declared the decision an anti-death penalty move from a court that has typically been pro-capital punishment.
With such comments and headlines flying around, it could be difficult to grasp the real meaning and impact of the decision. Such confusion could also lead to emotional reactions based on misinformation — something our country doesn’t need in light of a federal court’s recent decision regarding the Pledge of Allegiance.
For a better understanding of the court’s meaning, it’s best to go straight to the justices’ own words, which strongly suggest this decision isn’t about slowly chipping away at capital punishment but about the constitutional guarantee of a trial by a jury.
"What (the) decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "Those states that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so — by requiring a prior jury finding of an aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase."
Washington doesn’t appear to be impacted by the court’s decision. But states that leave it up to a judge to look at factors a jury didn’t get to examine will have to make serious changes. It should be noted that under the new ruling it appears judges can reject a jury’s recommendation of the death penalty.
Opponents argued that judges were sometimes the best ones to make the ultimate life or death decision, because they were less likely than juries to be emotional. But if juries in other states, such as our own, can make an intelligent, reasoned decision based on information presented, why shouldn’t other states be held to the same standard?
If people need more proof that this case was about trials by jury and not whittling away at capital punishment, they should look at the court’s 2000 decision that struck down a law allowing judges to increase prison terms if they decided an offense was a hate crime. Not so fast, the court ruled. A jury needs to examine those aggravating factors, justices said.
Put in this context, the decision makes sense and is not a threat to the implementation of capital punishment. However, it does offer some much-needed review of our country’s procedures for executing its worst offenders — a review people on both sides of the debate should welcome calmly and objectively.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
