Opinion ID: 2416788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Family Opposition to the Death Penalty

Text: Jones asserts that the trial court erred when it imposed the death sentence contrary to the victim's family wishes because that action denied them of the right to be meaningfully heard at sentencing and was contrary to the policy of treating victims with fairness, compassion, dignity, respect and sensitivity, as guaranteed by article I, section 32 of the Missouri Constitution. Dorothy Knuckles' family urged that a death sentence not be imposed. Jones argues that this request was based on feelings that the family could not begin the healing process if Jones were sentenced to death, and that no retributive interest was served since the family did not want a death sentence. Article I, section 32(2) of the Missouri Constitution, which governs crime victims rights, provides: Upon request of the victim, the right to be informed of and heard at guilty pleas, bail hearings, sentencings, probation revocation hearings, and parole hearings, unless in the determination of the court the interests of justice requires otherwise.... Nothing in the above provision suggests that the trial court is required to follow the wishes of the victim's family members. The court heard the wishes of the family but was not bound by them.