Supreme Court rules 8-1 Florida's death penalty process unconstitutional

[davidn3600]

In an 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled against Florida’s capital punishment scheme, which says that judges have the power to determine facts in death penalty cases.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor said on Tuesday in was Hurst v. Florida that “the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury’s mere recommendation is not enough.”
---
The question was whether the sentencing scheme violated Ring v. Arizona (2002), in which the Supreme Court ruled that a capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment if it gives the judge, rather than the jury, the authority to determine whether the facts of the case are sufficient to impose the death penalty.

“Without contesting Ring’s holding, Florida offers a bevy of arguments for why Hurst’s sentence is constitutional. None holds water,” said Sotomayor.

“The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. This right required Florida to base Timothy Hurst’s death sentence on a jury’s verdict, not a judge’s fact finding. Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional,” she concluded.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that “even if there was a constitutional violation in this case, I would hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-overrules-florida-death-penalty-sentencing-scheme-164010026--politics.html

[LittleBlue]

1. Good decision

The jury should be making this decision. Shame we don't abolish it.

[malaise]

2. Excellent

This is great news

[SwankyXomb]

3. This is a shocking decision

Not the ruling, but that the 1 wasn't Clarence Thomas.

[hifiguy]

4. That was my first thought, too.

Soapy Sam is a piece of work, isn't he?

[philosslayer]

5. Alito's comment

“even if there was a constitutional violation in this case, I would hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Harmless? Death penalty cases?? yikes

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Because the Jury found 3 Aggravating Factors at Trial

The only substantive change might have been if the Jury was required to give a unanimous verdict for death. As it was 11-1 after 6hrs of deliberation, that is possible. But the Jury was presented with Two Aggravating Factors and Came back with three aggravating factors.

victim suffered a minimum of sixty incised slash and stab wounds, including severe wounds to the face, neck, back, torso, and arms.   The victim also had blood stains on the knees of her pants, indicating that she had been kneeling in her blood.   A forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Berkland, testified that some of the wounds cut through the tissue into the underlying bone, and while several wounds had the potential to be fatal, the victim probably would not have survived - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1219017.html#sthash.4EXKy5W3.dpuf

[MurrayDelph]

7. Alito is one of those

"unless it happens to me or mine, I don't give a shit" Republicans.