Who should decide whether
or not a death sentence is imposed, a judge or a jury? In late June of this year, the United States
Supreme Court decided by a seven to two margin that the jury, not the judge
should make this decision. Equally
important, the Court made this decision retroactive, and there are
approximately two hundred death row inmates who are now eligible for a new
sentencing hearing.
In 1966 Timothy Stuart Ring
was convicted of a number of charges, including first degree murder in Sun
City, Arizona. In this matter, a jury
in the state of Arizona convicted Mr. Ring of murder, and left it to the judge
to decide whether or not Mr. Ring should be put to death, or alternatively,
whether he should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of
parole. Judge Gregory H. Martin
conducted the sentencing hearing and decided on the death penalty. Mr. Ring appealed, contending the judge
could not make this decision. Seven
Supreme Court Justices agreed with this contention, deciding as stated by
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg: “Capital defendants, no less than non-capital
defendants, are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the
legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment.” Justice Ginsberg concluded that the right to
a jury trial would be forever diminished if it did not include the finding of
fact necessary to have one receive the death penalty.
This decision will not
affect us here in California. In this
state, it is already up to the jury to recommend a sentence of death. The judge then has the option of either
upholding the death sentence, or overturing the recommendation and deciding on
life without the possibility of parole.
In other words, the judge can opt to not accede to the jury’s wishes if
the jury recommends the death sentence; however, the judge cannot raise or
heighten the sentence to become death if the jury does not recommend
death.
It is thought that this
decision will lead to fewer death sentences, as statistics suggest that judges,
if left on their own would impose the death penalty more often than do
jurors.
This is a good
decision. The right to a trial by jury
does not mean it is only up to the jury to decide whether or not you’re
innocent or guilty. In order for that
right to have teeth, the jury needs to be the decision maker regarding whether
or not to recommend life or death. I
like the additional safeguard we have in this state whereby the judge can
choose to disregard the recommendation of death if he so desires; however, he
cannot choose to disregard a recommendation of life without the possibility of
parole if that is the will of the jury.
I think we have a well-balanced law in this state, and I further believe
that the United States Supreme Court made the right decision in the Ring
case.
Charlie Unger is a criminal defense attorney in the Glendale
law firm of Flanagan, Unger, Danis & Grover, and a psychotherapist at the
Foothill Centre for Personal and Family Development. Mr. Unger writes a bimonthly column on legal and psychological
issues. He can be reached at charlie@charlieunger.com or at (818) 244-8694