A recent edi­to­r­i­al in Floridas Tampa Bay Times called for law­mak­ers to study the state’s death penal­ty because of its high num­ber of exon­er­a­tions and death sen­tences. Using infor­ma­tion from DPIC’s recent 2012 Year End Report, the edi­to­r­i­al not­ed that 2012 marked the sec­ond con­sec­u­tive year in which the state led the coun­try in new death sen­tences. The edi­to­r­i­al sug­gest­ed that one of the rea­sons for these num­bers was like­ly Florida’s fail­ure to require a unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tion for death sen­tences, one of the few states in the coun­try with such a pol­i­cy. While imply­ing that the bet­ter path might be com­plete abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty, the edi­to­r­i­al called for changes in the sen­tenc­ing process, say­ing that its cur­rent pro­ce­dures are hap­haz­ard and error-prone. The paper con­clud­ed, Florida is long over­due for a com­pre­hen­sive look at its death penal­ty sys­tem… It is time to bet­ter under­stand why the state impos­es the penal­ty dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly and ends up exon­er­at­ing so many. Basic jus­tice demands it.” Read the full editorial below.

Florida’s death penal­ty needs fresh look

5 states have repealed the death penal­ty in the last 5 years, with Connecticut being the lat­est to do so in 2012. But as oth­er states have become dis­en­chant­ed with the ulti­mate pun­ish­ment in light of so many wrong­ful con­vic­tions, Florida has moved in the oppo­site direc­tion. Last year was the sec­ond straight that this state ranked 1st in the nation in new death sen­tences. There is no polit­i­cal will to fol­low the enlight­ened path of abo­li­tion, but Florida should ana­lyze why it’s such an out­lier. One like­ly rea­son is that the state does­n’t require a unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tion for a death sen­tence, and that should be corrected.

Florida sen­tenced 22 peo­ple to death last year. Compare that to the more pop­u­lous states of California, which sen­tenced 14 inmates, and Texas, the state with the high­est num­ber of exe­cu­tions, which put only nine new inmates on death row last year, accord­ing to a report by the Death Penalty Information Center. The count rais­es Florida’s death row to 408 inmates. But even as the state adds to death row, it is find­ing prob­lems with the legal process that led to those con­vic­tions and sen­tences. Florida also leads the nation in the num­ber of inmates who have had their death sen­tences reversed. Out of 142 such cas­es, Florida accounts for 24 exon­er­a­tions, acquit­tals or charges sub­se­quent­ly dropped, accord­ing to the cen­ter. Some of these were peo­ple shown to be inno­cent of the crime. Frank Lee Smith, for instance, was exon­er­at­ed posthu­mous­ly. The real per­pe­tra­tor was iden­ti­fied after Smith died from can­cer after he spent the last 14 years of his life on death row.

For years, Raoul Cantero has been urg­ing the state Legislature to require a unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tion for death sen­tences. Cantero, a for­mer Florida Supreme Court jus­tice who was appoint­ed by Gov. Jeb Bush, saw how hap­haz­ard­ly the death penal­ty is applied and how that can lead to poten­tial­ly fatal errors. Florida is the only state that per­mits juries to rec­om­mend a death sen­tence, and iden­ti­fy the aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances that jus­ti­fy it, by a sim­ple major­i­ty vote. Were jurors required to all agree, as they are required to do for the ini­tial con­vic­tion, the close cas­es that don’t tru­ly meet the test of heinous­ness would­n’t clog up the courts.

Lawmakers who have opposed this change have made the argu­ment that it might have led to ser­i­al killers such as Ted Bundy escap­ing the death penal­ty, since Bundy’s jury vot­ed 10 – 2 for death. But when a jury that knows its judg­ment has to be unan­i­mous, it changes the dynam­ic of the delib­er­a­tions and the likely outcome.

The state’s lead­ers have been deaf to the inher­ent sense in adopt­ing the tighter rules of oth­er death penal­ty states. During the last leg­isla­tive ses­sion, a bill that would have required cap­i­tal-juror una­nim­i­ty dur­ing the tri­al’s sen­tenc­ing phase was not heard. But if state law­mak­ers aren’t will­ing to do what is right, the courts may force the issue. Both state and fed­er­al courts have indi­cat­ed con­sti­tu­tion­al con­cerns over Florida’s system.

Florida is long over­due for a com­pre­hen­sive look at its death penal­ty sys­tem — an endeav­or that any branch of gov­ern­ment could launch. It is time to bet­ter under­stand why the state impos­es the penal­ty dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly and ends up exon­er­at­ing so many. Basic jus­tice demands it.

(“Florida’s death penal­ty needs a fresh look,” edi­to­r­i­al, Tampa Bay Times, January 6, 2013.) See Editorials and Arbitrariness.

Citation Guide