Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 35

Heading: washington's death penalty as a violation of the eighth amendment

Text: ISSUE (16). Whether Petitioner's sentence of death was imposed arbitrarily, capriciously and discriminatorily because of his indigence and race in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner, citing Furman v. Georgia, [333] claims the death penalty as administered in the State of Washington is cruel and unusual punishment because it is arbitrary, capricious, and discriminates against ethnic minorities and the poor. [334] The eighth amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment, provides that [e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is interpreted in light of `evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.' [335] Relying on Furman, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring in Walton v. Arizona, stated that a sentencer's discretion to return a death sentence must be constrained by specific standards, so that the death penalty is not inflicted in a random and capricious fashion. [336] In Furman, the United States Supreme Court overturned the sentences of two men convicted and sentenced to death in state courts for murder and one man so convicted and sentenced for rape, under statutes that gave the jury complete discretion to impose death for those crimes, with no standards as to the factors it should deem relevant. [337] The per curiam opinion [338] concluded that `the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in [these cases] constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.' [339] Because of Furman, states were required to focus their death penalty statutes more narrowly so the discretion of the jury was channeled. [340] Under the Eighth Amendment, the capital sentencing process must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder. [341] This narrowing can be accomplished by either limiting the definition of capital crimes or by broadly defining capital crimes but requiring additional aggravating facts in the penalty phase to justify a sentence of death. [342] Additionally, an aggravating circumstance may not be so generic that it could apply to all murders and it may not be so vague that it provides inadequate guidance to the sentencer. [343] In In re Brown we stated: Under the Eighth Amendment, the sentencing scheme must not allow the death penalty to be wantonly or freakishly imposed, it must direct and limit jury discretion, to minimize the risk of arbitrary or capricious action, and it must allow particularized consideration of relevant aspects of the character and record of each defendant, and the circumstances of the offense, before imposition of the sentence. [ [344] ] Petitioner argues that the absence of adequate defense resources continues to mean that the death penalty continues to be administered in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and unfair. [345] He also argues that he was represented by lawyers who were unqualified, overworked, and disinterested in his case. [346] There is no showing by Petitioner how the sentencing scheme relating to the death penalty in Washington violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. In responding to a similar argument, we stated in In re Brown that [i]mposition of the death penalty ... was not arbitrary because of `budgetary constraints' nor for any other reason. [347] Similarly, in this case the record does not support Petitioner's claim of cruel and unusual punishment because of his indigence. During the guilt phase and penalty phase of his trial, Petitioner was provided at State expense two experienced and competent attorneys to present his defense. He had the services of four investigators, five medical experts, and other defense experts. Petitioner also contends the death penalty as administered in Washington is cruel and unusual because it discriminates against ethnic minorities. In his reply brief, he submits racial statistics purporting to illustrate that Washington's death sentencing appears to follow the pattern of death sentences imposed more frequently when the defendant is nonwhite and the victim is white, and never, or almost never, when the racial equation is reversed. [348] A similar argument was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Kemp. [349] In a challenge to a death sentence based on a statistical study of the relationship between the death penalty and the races of murder victims and defendants, the court stated that absent a showing that the [state] capital punishment system operates in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the defendant could not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. [350] Petitioner has not established his claim merely by citing general statistics. He concedes they do not purport to be conclusive proof of race discrimination.