Prosecutorial Discretion and the Death Penalty’s Constitutionality
June 7, 2015Feature . Feature Img ArticleIrrespective of one’s beliefs about the fairness of sentencing convicted criminals to death, a high-profile case in which capital punishment is involved is also a sober time for reflection. To be sure, the constitutionality of the death penalty is not in doubt. The death penalty has long been held to be not per se unconstitutional by Supreme Court’s precedent and by historical evidence. The new wave of evidence, showing that wide prosecutorial discretion may lead to arbitrariness and disproportionality problems in the outcome of death penalty cases could very well result in the court subjecting capital punishment to constitutional review.
It is important to look at the traditional constitutional concerns regarding the death penalty. In Furman v. Georgia, the deeply divided Supreme Court filed a short holding and opinion and five separate concurrences detailing the constitutional concerns of the Justices. The majority essentially held that imposing the death penalty in Furman constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Justices however, did not agree to the rationale. The concurring opinion of Justice Brennan and Marshall contended that the death penalty was unfit for civilization and hence per se unconstitutional.
In contrast, the controlling opinion by the other three Justices was more concerned with the arbitrariness of the imposition of the death penalty. More specifically, they argued that the seemingly racial element in the administration of the death penalty put the practice in violation of the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. Since Furman, states have tried to deal with the arbitrariness concerns expressed in Furman by enacting a plethora of statutes. Some of these statutes have imposed mandatory death sentences for certain crimes, hence removing the arbitrariness of judges and jurors.
The “cruel and unusual punishment” framework was further clarified in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons. In Atkins, the Court held that persons who were mentally retarded could not be given death sentences. The court created another exempted class in Simmons, when it held that persons under the age of 18 could not receive the death penalty. These decisions signified the understanding of the Court that the administration of the death penalty has to be both fair and proportional.
Recent events, such as the grand jury’s decision not to indict the officer who killed Eric Garner, have brought the issue of prosecutorial discretion back into the spotlight. It is argued that the arbitrariness that the Furman Court sought to address at the sentencing phase has been replaced by arbitrariness at the prosecutorial phase. Some researchers indicate that the decision by the prosecutor whether to seek the death penalty is influenced by local laws and personal idiosyncrasies, and not necessarily solely racial prejudice. Despite efforts by courts and legislators to provide standards to guide the exercise of discretion, prosecution remains largely dominated by the executive branch both at state and federal levels. Unlike judicial opinions, these exercises of discretion are virtually unchecked and unreviewable. There is no appellate body reviewing whether a prosecutor’s decision to seek the death penalty was influenced by racial animus or other characteristics of the defendant that are unrelated to his guilt.
And there are plenty of evidence pointing toward racial elements playing a role in the death penalty process. For example, while black Americans make up of only 13% of the total population, they account for 41% of death row inmates. The Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to consider such demographic evidence as indicating the arbitrariness of the system. Granted, the fact that the death penalty system may be flawed is not conclusive evidence for its abolition. But it is certainly evidence for judicial and legislative oversight over the process. Looking back at the Furman decision, concerns like arbitrariness and disproportionality echoes the same theme: that is, similarly-situated defendants should be treated alike. This provides guidance as to how courts should guide executive discretion in seeking the death penalty for a defendant. Namely, perhaps prosecutors should be required to seek mandatory death penalty sentences for certain crimes. Or they can only accept a plea bargain that waive the death sentence if there are statutory mitigating circumstances .
Mandatory sentencing has a lot of human rights implications that need further examination. For instance a lot of human rights organizations have challenged the application of mandatory death sentencing as being inhumane.
You may also like
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010