On February 9, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association unan­i­mous­ly passed two res­o­lu­tions call­ing for unan­i­mous juries in cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing and greater trans­paren­cy in lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures. Resolution 108A stat­ed: ​“Before a court can impose a sen­tence of death, a jury must unan­i­mous­ly rec­om­mend or vote to impose that sen­tence,” and, ​“The jury in such cas­es must also unan­i­mous­ly agree on the exis­tence of any fact that is a pre­req­ui­site for eli­gi­bil­i­ty for the death penal­ty and on the spe­cif­ic aggra­vat­ing fac­tors that have each been proven beyond a rea­son­able doubt.” Currently, some states, includ­ing Florida, Alabama, and Delaware, allow a jury to rec­om­mend a death sen­tence with­out una­nim­i­ty. Resolution 108B called for all death penal­ty juris­dic­tions ​“to pro­mul­gate exe­cu­tion pro­to­cols in an open and trans­par­ent man­ner and require pub­lic review and com­ment pri­or to final adop­tion of any exe­cu­tion pro­to­col, and require dis­clo­sure to the pub­lic by all rel­e­vant agen­cies of all rel­e­vant infor­ma­tion regard­ing exe­cu­tion pro­ce­dures.” As lethal injec­tion drug restric­tions have caused states to seek out new sources of drugs, many states have adopt­ed secre­cy poli­cies sur­round­ing their lethal injection process. 

(L. Laird, ​“Capital pun­ish­ment should require una­nim­i­ty and trans­paren­cy, say ABA pol­i­cy­mak­ers,” ABA Journal, February 9, 2015). See DPIC’s report Blind Justice and Lethal Injection.

Citation Guide