Fix the death penalty - MiamiHerald.com

In 2005, the Florida Supreme Court took the unusual step of begging the Legislature to clean up Florida' s death-penalty statute. In an opinion by then-Justice Raoul Cantero, appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush and hardly a bleeding heart, pointed out that Florida stands alone in not requiring that a jury recommendation of the death penalty be unanimous and in not requiring that a jury spell out the reasons for recommendation.

The following year, the American Bar Association chimed in with similar although broader recommendations for change.

The Legislature's reaction: A big yawn. And — worse — it even took steps backward by trimming the availability of skilled lawyers to handle appeals by Death Row inmates.

The sentencing issue should have been in the legislative hopper after a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Arizona case with direct relevance for the Florida law. That decision was not retroactive, but the Legislature's failure to make needed changes has put more-recent death sentences into legal jeopardy and left the state courts in a quandary.

In polite language, Florida law governing the imposition of the death penalty is inherently self-contradictory. In plain language, dumb.

Keep in mind as we sally through Florida Statute 921.141, that under American law, a judge is considered the finder of law; and a jury, the finder of fact.

Like most other states with the death penalty, the statute provides a separate hearing on the death penalty after the jury (or upon a defendant's rare request, the judge) determines guilt or the defendant pleads guilty. The jury is to weigh "aggravating factors." Was the murder especially "heinous" or for financial gain? Was it of a police officer or during the commission of another crime? And a lot more. The jury also is to consider "mitigating" factors such as the age of the defendant, whether the defendant was under extreme emotional disturbance or the victim was a police officer, and so forth.

Florida, of course, requires a jury finding of guilt to be unanimous. How logical is it not to require that a recommendation that a human being deserves to die be unanimous, too? According to the last available count, fewer than 19 percent of 625 Florida jury recommendations for death were unanimous.

Further, Florida does not require the jury to specify which "aggravators" support its recommendation of death while most states do and also require unanimity on those findings. So a Florida jury is to make its finding of facts without specifying what facts it found.

In June, U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez ordered a new sentencing hearing for a Death Row inmate from Vero Beach, holding that this specific failure is an unconstitutional flaw in light of the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Legislature has only itself to blame for this decision.

What's also problematic is that a jury's decision is to be only "advisory" despite its role as the finder of fact. In Florida, the judge makes the final decision and the judge outlines the findings on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. That's despite the judge having no clue as what the jury thought in weighing its recommendation.

Earlier this month, Florida State University's law school convened a panel to reinforce the need for reforms, and the Legislature will have bills to consider in the next session.

Cleaning up this law would not be mollycoddling criminals. Rather, it would save criminal justice the hard cash spent on avoidable appeals and resentencings.

And it would eliminate one piece of nonsense from Florida law, nonsense that has no place in such a serious matter as whether the state should take a life.

Read More @ Source

Criminal Stories Here