Judge, jury and executioner: Although this idiom is meant to refer to someone having ultimate power and authority over one’s fate, the legal system of the U.S. is designed in such a way that these three functions are meant to remain relatively distinct and act with a measure of independence from one another. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court found two of these roles to be a little too close for its liking in the case of Hurst v. Florida.
In an 8-1 ruling, the court found that Florida’s methodology for imposing the death penalty was unconstitutional, violating the Sixth Amendment’s stipulation that a defendant have the right to an impartial jury. The ruling was predicated on the premise that far too much power is allotted to Floridian judges when considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances (factors that, respectively, increase or decrease the severity of a sentence) that would qualify a defendant for the death penalty. In the eyes of the court, the Sixth Amendment requires “Florida to base Timothy Hurst’s death sentence on a jury’s verdict, not a judge’s factfinding,” according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who delivered the majority opinion.
The opinion continues: “Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional.” The case was reversed and remanded, meaning that it was now the Florida Supreme Court’s responsibility to adjust Floridian law in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.
Although the decision was issued Jan. 12, it would not be until last Tuesday, Feb. 2, that the ruling in Hurst v. Florida would have a discernible impact on our state’s legal proceedings. As reported in these very pages, the Florida Supreme Court delayed the execution of Cary Michael Lambrix. Lambrix, who was convicted of the murders of Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant in 1983, had been scheduled to die by lethal injection this Thursday.
After hearing arguments for and against applying the Hurst ruling retroactively — which would most likely result in Lambrix and others on Florida’s death row having their sentences reduced to life in prison, rather than execution — it is now up to the justices on Florida’s highest court to decide whether to go ahead with the execution of Lambrix and the 388 others languishing on death row. Concurrently, members of the Florida House of Representatives are working to draft a bill that would bring our state’s death penalty statute in line with those of other states and the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
It should surprise few that we strongly believe this should never have been an issue to begin with. The death penalty is a barbaric punishment fit only for barbaric societies: It is morally presumptuous, a drain on our tax dollars, a prominent blemish on our democracy and, here in the U.S., tinged with a considerable degree of racism and classism. For a country that so emphatically prides itself on being a pluralistic, self-determining society, the U.S. seems all too comfortable in the same company as China, Iran and North Korea when it comes to murdering its own citizens.
Whether Lambrix and others are granted a permanent reprieve, we have no doubts that the Florida Legislature will find a way to ensure future sentences legally satiate their bloodlust.
