Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Suggestions to fix Florida's death penalty

  1. #1
    Senior Member Frequent Poster Fact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    486

    Suggestions to fix Florida's death penalty

    Florida has a unique chance to change the calculus on the death penalty, to make it more fair, and to allow it to withstand constitutional scrutiny in the future. Here are my suggestions

    1. Keep it so that there is no unanimity requirement. Nothing fosters arbitrariness greater than a single juror veto. Require that the verdict be at least 10-2 in favor of death.
    2. Eliminate simple robbery and felony murder aggravating circumstances. This alone would virtually eliminate any racial or economic disparities.
    3. In addition to concrete aggravating circumstances, specific motives proven beyond a reasonable doubt should make a killer eligible for death. Examples of this being if the killer enjoyed the crime, if the killer was motivated by racial/ethnic/religious/gender bias, or if someone in the course of a robbery kills an unresisting victim or a witness to the robbery. For more on this, read the model death penalty statute by Professor Robert Blecker
    4. In a mirror of the Pennsylvania law, if the jury finds that there is at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances, the deliberations cease and the penalty must be death. In the same manner, if the jury finds that there are mitigating circumstances present but the aggravating circumstances outweigh them, the deliberations cease and the penalty must be death. The Supreme Court found this to be constitutional in Blystone v. Pennsylvania
    5. In the event that non-unanimous verdicts of death are found to be unconstitutional, in a mirror of the Arizona law, the failure to achieve unanimity gives the prosecution the option to impanel a second sentencing jury. If that jury is unable to reach a verdict, the penalty shall be life without parole. In addition, if a majority of the first jury does not vote for death, then the sentence shall be life without parole.
    6. Any appellate claim that is not related to actual innocence is defaulted at the conclusion of the inmate's state collateral appeals.
    7. A six month time limit from the conclusion of briefing of an appeal or oral argument in said appeal to the time that an appellate decision must be reached. If the court fails to issue a decision in that time frame, the decision of the lower court is automatically affirmed. If the appeal is in the trial court, then the sentence is automatically affirmed and it is moved along to the state appellate court.


    I think these could dramatically improve the death penalty while truly limiting it to the worst of the worst and neutralize arguments against it. If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to clarify.
    Last edited by Fact; 01-30-2016 at 03:52 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Member Unsub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    147
    Full disclosure - i dont believe in the DP in any scenario. But while it exists im all for making things transparent and as fair as possible.

    First i will give my response to your ideas then i will give my ideas.

    1. Most of the anti's, and as i stated before i am one of them, believe a death qualified jury already rigs the system against the defendant. So i would be very hesitant to remove the protection of a unanimous jury in this scenario. In my scenario the jury would not decide this at all.
    2. I couldnt agree more.
    3. This muddies the water way to much. It will require proof of things that are just very hard to quantify and thus prove. If you want a DP it should be as exact as possible. You do this or that you gonna die. Not if you do this or that there is a chance a jury finds a reason to kill you.
    4. Sounds reasonable, but in my scenario the jury wont decide this.
    5. see 4.
    6. I dont understand enough of the us criminal system to answer this really. But isnt it so that a lot of constitutional issues can only be brought at federal level? ( excuse me if i said something stupid).
    7. This i cant agree with, i dont think you can punish the defendant for the due process required.


    My best case DP scenario:

    The prosecutor seeks the DP. The jury only decides wether the defendant commited the crime. An appointed ( as in non elected ) state high court decides the sentence.
    The fact that a judge is elected might have an effect on his/hers death penalty decisions (First result after google search "elected judge death penalty statistics": http://www.reuters.com/investigates/...penalty-judges )
    This eliminates all jury problems
    1. Everyone can sit on the jury even people that dont believe in the DP
    2. Less hooha when an all white jury sentences a black guy to death
    3. A lot less things to appeal.

    Seems like everyone wins in that scenario.

    Of course this isnt a unique chance but something every state can do whenever they want to, Florida was simply forced to do so.
    Love your enemies...they hate it

  3. #3
    Senior Member Frequent Poster Fact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    486
    The problem is that the Supreme Court held that sentencing by judge is unconstitutional in Ring v. Arizona (2005). I disagree with that. Ideally, a judge, or better, a panel of three judges like in Nebraska would make the sentencing determination.

    I think death qualified juries are a necessity, but we also must make sure that there are life without parole qualified juries as well. I'm somewhat peculiar among pro-death penalty people in thinking that fewer people should be sentenced to death. I don't think that a person who sticks up a liquor store and kills someone should be immediately qualified for death when someone who kills an elderly woman for the thrill of it isn't immediately qualified for death.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Member OperaGhost84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Volusia County, FL
    Posts
    236
    I actually argue (and I know it's unconstitutional and thus, Fantasy) that the sentence should be fixed to the verdict with those qualifying for mitigating circumstances excluded 100% but meanwhile, in reality...

    I think the initial brief should actually be gifted two full years to complete, including any (and all) psyche evaluations and to include both the sentence and the conviction, that way only one case is moving through the courts. It'd be nice if we could split a separate and unique Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals like in Texas but I'm not asking for a miracle here. I'll also argue that a 2nd Degree or Manslaughter Cases should be upgraded to 1st Degree "Death is on the Table" Murder if a serious attempt is made to dispose of the body (burial, cremation, destruction, dumping in the Lake Okeechobee, fed to an alligator, etc) because even though it didn't start out as a 1st Degree, it sure as heck looks like one.

    But to be absolutely clear, just fix the Jury's verdict to the Judge's decision like the Supreme Court asked and we're back in business.

    (Oh, and tether the Clemency Hearings to the county level judges so that they're held as soon as SCOTUS denies final brief.)
    I am vehemently against Murder. That's why I support the Death Penalty.

  5. #5
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Richard86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wiltshire, England
    Posts
    500
    I like Unsub's idea. I think the jury and judge should make separate reasoned recommendations as to the sentence based on public outrage and legality respectively, and these are evaluated by a state level appointed judicial panel which makes the decision about the sentence. This would allow juries to express an opinion of the public's reaction to the crime, but also prevent a single juror (or even an entire jury) who opposes the death penalty to prevent a death sentence for a case that compared to other cases would clearly warrant it. You wouldn't even need an explicitly death qualified jury in such a system. But unfortunately that sort of system is unconstitutional.

    I'd also make the appeals process require the condemned to choose if they want to challenge the safety of their conviction (either the conviction itself, or any factors that contributed to the imposition of their sentence) or appeal directly for clemency. If they opt to challenge their conviction they should specify at the outset exactly what they're challenging, with no scope to add additional factors that they're challenging at a later point should their arguments be refuted.

    I'm somewhat peculiar among pro-death penalty people in thinking that fewer people should be sentenced to death. I don't think that a person who sticks up a liquor store and kills someone should be immediately qualified for death when someone who kills an elderly woman for the thrill of it isn't immediately qualified for death.
    I agree, I've always found it curious that robbery murder is by default death qualified but other sorts of heinous murder aren't. Following the British 1957 Homicide Act for example pushing someone into a swimming pool resulting in them drowning during a robbery qualified for a death sentence but rape and murder of a 14 year old girl didn't. There is of course a difference if the murderer killed someone during a robbery who wasn't resisting, but that could be covered by another aggravating circumstance, murder of a witness for example.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •