Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugeater
(Post 14861585)
Did we ever get this settled?
|
I can give you an answer, but it's not a short one.
1. Furman v Georgia struck down all statutes that 'mandated' capital punishment. That is, the government cannot seek the death penalty just for the particular crime. The government must seek the death penalty based upon a variety of criteria that justify capital punishment in that particular case - defendant's particularly bad record; case involved torture, sexual assault or other gratuitous violence;* case involved more than 1 victim or a vulnerable victim; case involved a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, judge or politician; whatever. Gregg v Georgia allowed capital punishment if the decision to seek death complied with several factors, not least of which was a focus upon that particular case, not the offense in general.
2. There are numerous capital sentencing laws in this country. The federal government has one as do about 30 states. (I don't have the exact number.) The criteria to justify the government seeking death varies between the different jurisdictions.
3. Just because the government seeks the death penalty does not mean that the government will get the death penalty. Capital cases have 2 phases: guilt and sentencing. Guilt means, "Did the defendant commit the crime as accused?" Sentencing means, "Does he deserve the death penalty?" At sentencing parties are free to introduce lots of evidence to suggest why that particular person does or not deserve the death penalty. And Supreme Court cases make it clear that each juror can vote based upon his or her own moral conscience. That is, there is NOTHING in the law that requires a vote for death. Someone can vote for life just to vote for life.
4. So what happens if jury convicts and then is split on punishment? Depends upon the jurisdiction. In federal court and some states (like Colorado), a hang at sentencing means that life without parole is automatic and cannot be appealed. Other states, such as Arizona and California, allow re-trying the sentencing phase.
So the tl;dr answer to the original question is, "No, just because you kill someone in a court house does not mean that you automatically get the death penalty."
* to someone who doesn't do this work, that phrase will sound odd. "Murders involve gratuitous violence, don't they?" Well, no. Legally there's a difference between shooting somebody between the eyes and typing them up and torturing them or raping them and then killing them, or other violence beyond that strictly necessary to kill someone or inflicted just for the twisted enjoyment of inflicting pain.
