Opinion ID: 2209082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The question remains whether in any event the death penalty should be imposed.

Text: 1. The United States Supreme Court appears to have created by decisions in the last several years a framework in which the states are permitted to establish their own standards as to employment of the death penalty provided the aggravating circumstances required at a minimum are reasonably prescribed and sufficiently proscribed; and provided that a state is consistent in similar factual situations in employing or not employing the death penalty; and further provided legal procedures are adopted to assure a studied approach wherein all possible mitigating factors are considered rather than an arbitrary, capricious and emotional approach to the imposition of the death penalty. In recent cases, the Indiana Supreme Court had decided that age, as young or younger than this defendant, of lack of prior record will not deter the death penalty if otherwise the act and the particular circumstances of the case are serious enough. 2. In part the proportionate-disproportionate determination rests upon the judgment of whether the deliberate and senseless killing of a law enforcement officer in the line of duty under the circumstances of this case is of sufficient degree to put it on a par with other killings perhaps more heinous in the manner in which the act of killing itself is carried out  multiple stabbings for example as in a recent case in which the death penalty was imposed and upheld. This Court places the act in the context of this case on that plane and finds it to be sufficient to support the death penalty. The Indiana Supreme Court will, of course, make the ultimate decision in this regard; and is in a better position actually to survey all that has passed before it than is the trial court. 3. The determination to be made here focuses, as do all death penalty cases, but perhaps this one more than many, upon the conflict which necessarily exists in this area: (a) On one hand is the importance we place on individual life and particularly young life and our recognition of the frailty of homan [sic] nature  there is absolutely no question we are all more deficient than we care to admit and the difference between the best and worst of us, however measured in human terms, is miniscule when measured on any absolute scale. Recognition, too, must be given that however impoverished is our human character, each of us can change, if by no other means, than at least by religious conversion. Rehabilitation can never be totally discounted. (b) But, on the other hand, in this area is the importance of the protection of society by deterrance of acts of violence not only directly on the basis that if death comes to some through the system others will be convinced not to commit similar acts (and the debate goes on as to the full extent of the deterrent effect); but also less directly, but perhaps more effectively, as a means of expression of the repulsion of the community at large by acts of violence, and a part of the tightening of the fabric of society and a reflection of the increasing demand that senseless violence must cease. And, too, from a societal protection standpoint, if outrage and utter exasperation exists with regard to senseless violence  which it does  is the increased importance of a system which is responsive, both actually and by appearance, to calm fear and to reveal a viable and generally accepted alternative to self help. 4. I do not believe anyone is fully capable of making this kind of life-death; individual-societal choice presented in a case of this nature. For one thing, the choice is never black and white. For example, no matter what might be said about society's protection by use of the death penalty, it is important to society that neither the community nor the system be so rigid, so hard, so inflexible that appropriate compassion and attention to the human condition is eliminated. If it is, the quality of life in the society is depreciated and the community ultimately suffers. 5. In making the final determination here, the Court has looked at all we have commented on and has looked carefully, as the Court told the jury in this case it would; at the jury's recommendation. The Court receives this case in a slightly different posture than did the jury. The applicable statute requires that the Court among all other factors consider the jury's recommendation. A. In evaluating the jury's recommendation, the Court first looked at the membership and the make up of the jury. The process of jury selection was slow, painstaking, and careful. This was not a death-oriented jury. In fact, in the opinion of the Court, this jury was disinclined generally toward death.
C. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that juries can be a reliable index of contemporary values as they relate to the employment of the death penalty generally and the Court believes a proper jury in a particular case can be a reliable index of those values in a given factual situation. The jury in this case has determined that this senseless killing of a law enforcement officer under all the facts and circumstances of this case warrants the death penalty. 6. In final analysis, with all other considerations mentioned, the Court is persuaded by the jury's recommendation and accepts it. It is the Court's recommendation as well. Therefore, based on all the foregoing, it has been adjudged that the defendant suffer the death penalty in the manner provided by law.