Opinion ID: 2454387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Weighing Value of Lives

Text: The prosecutor argued: Why do we have the death penalty? The reason we have the death penalty is because the right of the innocent people to live outweighsby huge leaps and bounds, outweighs the right of the guilty not to die. The right of the innocent completely outweighs the right of the guilty not to die, and, so, it comes down to one basic thing. Whose life is more important to you? Whose life has more value? The Defendant's or Jill Lynn Frey's? This argument seriously misstates the law. First, the prosecutor's attempt to simplify the death sentence to one basic thing is an error. Rather, the jury must consider a wide array of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. § 565.032 RSMo 1986. Moreover, even if the process could be distilled to one thing, it would not be Whose life is more important to you? Whose life has more value? In truth, There is one principle ...: The State must ensure that the process is neutral and principled so as to guard against bias or caprice in the sentencing decision. Tuilaepa v. California,  U.S.___,___, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 2635, 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994). Second, the prosecutor's argument erroneously lumps all persons found guilty of murder into one category for penalty purposes. In fact, the sentencing process distinguishes some murderers from others; an aggravating circumstance that applies to all murderers is unconstitutional. Arave v. Creech,  U.S.___,___, 113 S.Ct. 1534, 1542, 123 L.Ed.2d 188 (1993). The sentencing decision must `rest on [an] individualized inquiry,' under which the `character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense' are considered.' Romano v. Oklahoma,  U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2004, 2009, 129 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994), quoting McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 303, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 1773, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987).