In an op-ed for the Orlando Sentinel, for­mer Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero (pic­tured) and ABA Death Penalty Assessment Team mem­ber Mark Schlakman call on the Florida leg­is­la­ture to repair the con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tions in Florida’s cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing scheme. The U.S. Supreme Court found in Hurst v. Florida that the state’s sen­tenc­ing process vio­lates the Sixth Amendment because a jury does not unan­i­mous­ly find the aggra­vat­ing fac­tors that jus­ti­fy a death sen­tence. Cantero and Schlakman urge the leg­is­la­ture to enact leg­is­la­tion to ​“require una­nim­i­ty for find­ings of aggra­va­tors and rec­om­men­da­tions of death.” Such a mea­sure has the sup­port of the American Bar Association, which high­light­ed Florida’s sen­tenc­ing scheme as an area of ​“crit­i­cal con­cern” in a 2006 report and passed a res­o­lu­tion in 2015 urg­ing all states to adopt una­nim­i­ty in cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing. At a Florida Senate Criminal Justice Committee hear­ing on January 27, pub­lic defend­ers, retired judges, and death penal­ty experts tes­ti­fied in favor of requir­ing jury una­nim­i­ty in order to rec­om­mend a death sen­tence, say­ing that such a change would pre­vent fur­ther con­sti­tu­tion­al chal­lenges. Florida pros­e­cu­tors also tes­ti­fied, ask­ing leg­is­la­tors to require unan­i­mous find­ings of aggra­vat­ing fac­tors, and at least nine jurors to rec­om­mend a death sen­tence. Currently, Florida is one of just three states, along with Alabama and Delaware, that does not require a unan­i­mous jury to impose a death sentence.

(R. Cantero and M. Schlackman, ​“Lawmakers must reform Florida’s death penal­ty,” Orlando Sentinel, January 21, 2016; S. Bousquet, ​“Florida experts offer fix­es to death penal­ty law,” Miami Herald, January 27, 2016.) See Sentencing and U.S. Supreme Court.

Tags
Citation Guide