Document: 468 U.S. 447 104 S.Ct. 3154 82 L.Ed.2d 340 Joseph Robert SPAZIANO, Petitionerv.FLORIDA. No. 83-5596. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 17, 1984. Decided July 2, Syllabus At petitioner's trial for first-degree murder, Florida court informed him that it would instruct jury on lesser included, noncapital offenses, if he waive statute limitations, which had expired as to those offenses. Petitioner refused statute, and was instructed solely capital murder. After returned a verdict guilty sentencing hearing conducted before same jury, majority recommended life imprisonment. Under law, jury's recommendation in case is only advisory, must conduct its own weighing aggravating mitigating circumstances determine proper sentence. If death sentence imposed, specified written findings are required. In this case, imposed entered support thereof. The affirmed conviction, rejecting contention Beck v. Alabama, 625, 100 2382, 65 392—which held prohibiting included offense instructions cases unconstitutional—required reversal because court's failure offenses absent waiver limitations However, reversed judge's consideration confidential portion presentence investigation report, neither party having received copy portion. On remand, again penalty after allow petitioner present evidence response new report. affirmed, holding, inter alia, there no constitutional infirmity procedure whereby judge allowed override Held: 1. facts, not error refuse supra, recognized risk an unwarranted conviction created when deprived "third option" convicting defendant offense. Petitioner's general premise criminal may be required substantive right—here right limitations—as condition receiving otherwise constitutionally fair does apply situation. Beck, element found essential simply instruction abstract, but enhanced rationality reliability existence introduced into deliberations. Where exists, detracts from, rather than enhances, process. has option waiving order have or asserting limitations. Pp. 454-457. 2. There requirement imprisonment final so preclude from overriding imposing fundamental issue proceeding determination appropriate punishment individual, Sixth Amendment guarantee issue. Nothing safeguards against arbitrary discriminatory application necessitated by qualitative difference requires jury. And purposes frustrated by, inconsistent with, scheme imposition determined judge. fact jurisdictions with statutes give life-or-death decision establish contemporary standards fairness decency offended override. Eighth violated every time State reaches conclusion different sisters over how best administer laws. 457-465. 3. imperative responsibility deciding whether should also disposes double jeopardy challenge jury-override procedure. vested sole penalty, advice become judgment comes P. 465. 4. Application allowing violate sentencing. indication resulted either particular case. here based his presence two statutory absence any circumstances. reviewed concluded properly under state law. Whether "reasonable people" could differ result, nothing irrational about penalty. 465-467. 433 So.2d 508 (Fla.1983), affirmed. Craig S. Barnard, Chief Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, Fla., petitioner. Mark C. Menser, Atty. Gen., Daytona respondent. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents questions regarding administration Florida's statute. particular, challenges He life. We conclude facts final. reject argument that, applied broad vague 2 * Spaziano indicted tried indictment brought years one month alleged effect at offense, August 1973, period years. Fla.Stat.§ 932.465(2) (1973).1 such § 932.465(1). 3 primary given witness who testified taken garbage dump Seminole County, where pointed out remains women claimed tortured murdered. challenged sufficiency witness' recall perception substantial drug habit. drugs day visit dump, been able direct police site. See State, 393 1119, 1120 (Fla.1981). 4 close evidence, attempted second-degree third-degree manslaughter, Tr. 751-755. accordingly 5 deliberated somewhat more six hours. It reported itself deadlocked, gave additional instruction, encouraging jurors resolve their differences come common conclusion.2 Shortly thereafter, 6 then convened Arguments were heard both sides offered A imprisonment.3 Florida, advisory. and, "[n]otwithstanding jury," enter death; latter Fla.Stat. 921.141(3) (1983).4 "notwithstanding . sufficient existed justify authorize sentence[;] insufficient outweigh case." App. 14. homicide especially heinous atrocious convicted previously felonies involving use threat violence person. circumstance "except, perhaps, age [28] defendant." Id., 14-15. 7 appeal, 1119 (1981). impose sentence, considered report contained information previous felony convictions well other charges convicted. Neither Relying Gardner 430 349, 97 1197, 51 (1977), rely without first disclosing giving opportunity response. 8 memorandum supplemental authority, urged 392 (1980), inapposite. concerned express prohibition requiring guilt innocence adjudicated guilty. denied certiorari. 454 1037, 102 581, 70 484 9 ordered scheduled hearing, evidence. presented forcible carnal knowledge aggravated battery. Although introduce prior initial excluded ground appeal. By rehearing, agreed consideration. Accordingly, relied finding reaffirmed crime heinous, atrocious, cruel. sentenced death. 25. 10 (1983). rejected erred original phase. noted reason mistakenly thought law considered, since 11 problem procedure, function added understanding binding requirements Furman Georgia, 408 238, 92 2726, 33 346 (1972). 12 Finally, suggesting "meets clear convincing test accordance Tedder 322 908 (Fla.1975)." So.2d, 511. One dissented, "no compelling reason" 512. 13 granted certiorari, 464 1038, 697, 79 164 (1984), we now affirm. II 14 turn refusal U.S., 637, S.Ct., 2389. Keeble States, 412 205, 212-213, 93 1993, 1997-1998, 36 844 (1973). "[s]uch cannot tolerated defendant's stake" "if unavailability enhances [a State] prohibited withdrawing 637-638, 2389-2392. entitled benefit offenses.5 15 urges right—to defense—in receive trial. made trial, necessary Thus, claims, rule regardless prevents actually being punished 16 We, course, quarrel do agree fairly applies us divorce reasoning based. require result. 17 role process essentially unreviewable always rational. increases will convict, persuaded avoid setting free. unacceptable demanded proceedings. 643, 2392. goal rule, words, eliminate distortion factfinding forced all-or-nothing choice between murder innocence. 638-643, 2390-2392. Requiring convicted, however, another type 18 reaffirm our commitment demands decisions reduce convictions. But unwilling eyes social cost proposed rule. tricked believing crimes find guilty, reality choice. Such undermine public's confidence justice system, serious disservice 19 thinking range accountable, question given, think better 20 As recognized, originally developed aid prosecution. failed produce prove charged, might still persuade something. 633, 2387. Wright, Federal Practice Procedure 515, p. 20, n. (2d ed. 1982). rests defendant, confident enough proved want take chances so, see little defense, what perceives advantage—an convict fails knowingly chose so.6 circumstances, III 21 second concerns violates Amendment's proscription "cruel unusual punishments." Because final, argues, practice Fifth Double Jeopardy Clause applicable through Fourteenth Amendment. Benton Maryland, 395 784, 793-796, 89 2056, 2061-2063, 23 707 (1969). drawing Court's recognition value role, particularly proceeding, Due Process 22 points need decide all required; whether, life, counsel acknowledged oral argument, cases, Oral Arg. 16-17. therefore address premise. Before doing useful clarify here. urge much like controlled Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 88 1444, 91 (1968). Duncan, guaranteed " 'basic system jurisprudence,' id., 149, 1447, quoting re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, L.Ed. 682 (1948), protected action 24 Court, many respects resembles Bullington Missouri, 451 430, 444, 101 1852, 1861, 278 'embarrassment, expense ordeal' faced phase least equivalent trial," bars making repeated efforts sentencer 445, Green 355 184, 187, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957); Arizona Rumsey, 467 203, 2305, 81 (1984). significant Clause, mean concern resources, wear down, thereby leading erroneously 1861. similar danger involved denying sentencer, obligation evaluate unique individual sentencer's supra. More important, despite aspects, involves proceeding—a individual. Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 604-605, 98 2954, 2964-2965, 57 973 (1978) (plurality opinion); Woodson North Carolina, 428 280, 304, 96 2978, 2991, 49 944 (1976) opinion), citing Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan Ashe, 302 51, 55, 58 59, 60, 43 (1937), Williams New York, 337 241, 247-249, 69 1079, 1083-1084, 1337 (1949). never 25 Nor "qualitative difference" struck down then-existing Georgia Texas, large part statutes, arbitrarily discriminatorily. Gregg 153, 188, 2909, 2932, 859 (joint Stewart, POWELL, STEVENS, JJ.). Since then, emphasized pursuit "twin objectives" "measured, consistent accused." Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 110-111, 869, 874, 71 (1982).7 available certain crimes, way can rationally distinguish individuals whom sanction not. Zant Stephens, 462 862, 873-880, 103 2733, 2741-2744, 77 235 (1983); 294, 2754 (BRENNAN, J., concurring). consider background, crime. 26 twin objectives suggests While hoped current procedures greatly reduced result 190-195, 2933-2935 certainly 27 laws most indicate nearly unanimous juries, judges, equipped make reliable capital-sentencing inviolate. recognition, urges, nature live die sets apart ultimate word. Noncapital sentences various reasons, including rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence. contrast, justification retribution. "the extreme expression community's belief themselves grievous affront humanity adequate death." 2930. community outrage. serves voice community, position answer no, 28 obviously some flaws. First, distinctions suggests. acknowledges, example, deterrence sentences. sentencers true, cases. Whatever deterrent primarily legislature. 186, 2931 opinion). Similar punishment. incapacitation embraced legitimate proceeding. 183, 28, 2930, 28; Jurek 262, 2950, 929 STEWART, retribution clearly plays prominent punishments society imposes, suggestion these 29 Second, even accepting retributive purpose behind apart, follow Imposing vehicle expressed. discretion limited reviewable. See, e.g., supra; 302-303, 2990-2991; 879-880, 2744. responsible specific legislature touchstones determining imposes "community's voice" free rein. authorized defined. 183-184, 2929-2930 394-395, 2806-2807 (BURGER, C.J., dissenting); 452-454, 2835-2836 (POWELL, dissenting). 30 denigrate significance link penal bulwark accused State. 181, 2928 399 78, 100, 90 1893, 1905, 446 (1970); 156, 1451; Witherspoon Illinois, 510, 519, 15, 1770, 1775, 776 point judge.8 31 acknowledge view sentencing, unlike performed out, 37 remaining life.9 adopted practice, "Although judgments legislatures, prosecutors weigh heavily balance, ultimately Amendment" practice. Enmund 458 782, 797, 3368, 3376, 73 1140 (1982); Coker 584, 597, 2861, 2868, 53 982 (1977) light it, of, nor behind, placing unconstitutional. 32 several times clear, say set up scheme. Pulley Harris, 465 37, 871, (1984); 884, 2747; 195, 2935 twice reasonable balance sensitivity ensuring Barclay 463 939, 3418, 1134 Proffitt 242, 252, 2960, 2966, 913 fundamentally odds alter authority decision. IV Our wrong exercising V 34 standard announced 908, 910 (1975). already safeguard affords Florida. Dobbert 432 282, 294-295, 2290, 2298-2299, 344 (1977). Proffitt, 249, 2965 satisfied takes seriously hesitated reverse derogates role. Richardson 437 1091, 1095 (Fla.1983); Miller 332 (Fla.1976). responsibility, second-guess deference accorded ensure discriminatory. 35 Regardless recommendation, independent review death, forth writing capriciously. 921.141(4). STEVENS Barclay, perform meaningful appellate each overridden 971-972, 23, 3436, (opinion concurring judgment). first, person, 921.141(5), advisory but, White 403 331, 339-340 rape accompanied site victim's body covered blood cuts breasts, stomach, chest. recounted torture victim while she living. 968, 3434 (STEVENS, here, 38 39 ordered. 40 WHITE, REHNQUIST joins, judgment. 41 I join except dictum page 456 indicating permit lesser-included-offense barred. 42 BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting part. others arising enacted 1972, Constitution permits execution prosecution unable peers 44 provides "deprive person liberty, property due law." concept deprivation—whether property—to occur grossly excessive case—if punishment" proscribed Amendment.1 three categories, mere matters degree. For although look source property, "it surely exclusive source." Meachum Fano, 427 215, 230, 2532, 2541, Board Regents Roth, 564, 572, 577, 2701, 2706, 2709, 548 deprivation liberty qualitatively heightened procedural hallmark Anglo-American jurisprudence. jurisprudence unequivocally established State's person's intrusion liberty. 45 (1972), Member joined endorsing proposition severity irrevocability, punishment, hence justified offense.2 prescribed judges normally understand rules, understood outrage—its sense lost moral entitlement live3 am convinced avoided single governmental official. history consensus juries decisions. basic explanation lies answered decisionmaker "express conscience (1968) (footnote omitted). 46 "trifurcated" identifying persons shall consists actual 248-250, 2964-2966, JJ.).4 supported 250-251, 253, 2965-2966, 2967. 47 democratically elected legislature, "we presume validity," 175, 2926, Nevertheless, presumption conclusive, effectively read Constitution. occasions Governments undertake punish manner Framers wished secure legislative majorities. correctly states: 'Although Amendment' practice." Ante, (quoting (1982)). mode analysis—there "an assessment values concerning infliction sanction," offends "evolving standar[d] decency," Gregg, 173, 2925 JJ.).5 48 Inquiry practices legislatures logical starting comports Amendment: "[L]egislative measures people's chosen representatives ascertaining decency." 2986, opinion).6 firmly supports ought "Except four entirely abolished middle last century, American jurisdiction cases." McGautha California, 402 200, 11, 1454, 1463, 711 (1971). employed discretionary 1948, did determinations disregard.7 Furman, permitted consent jury.8 Currently, explains, ante, 463, leniency. 50 (1982), one-third intended strong 792, 3374. Here level greater, demonstrating feeling decent leave authentic community—the jury—rather Examination historical thus reached Royal Commission Capital Punishment decades ago: "For part, hesitation agreeing witnesses country least, too heavy burden differs absolutely, degree, sentence; wholly traditional approach issues lay shoulders Judge grave invidious. accord instinct people entrust men joint affect Punishment, 1949-1953, Report 193-194 (1953).9 52 few reasons illuminates extent decency. During century 1872 1972 change decisionmaking occurred motivated identifiable legislature's values; rather, Furman. plurality condemned pattern results statutes.10 number responded reducing deeply rooted communal value, attempt comply opinions case.11 specifically 294-297, 2298-2300.12 subsequently Furman,13 undermining basis predicated sort misunderstanding validity sound policy sentiment.14 54 Even history, viewed representing judicial standards. reflects impulse involvement That evident jury,15 construed forbid unless finds favoring virtually sentence.16 experience lends important legitimacy 55 notes traditionally concerned. 459. Deciding upon routine work judges. experience, training, presumably well. But, precisely unique, normal context. entrusted tradition, marked sharp distinction usual evaluations competence respect eliminates context, assigning officials sense.17 56 tradition kind nevertheless correct insist factors prevent innovation variation 464. Therefore, focused inquiry implications put relationship implications, essential. unusual" barbarity "excessive" "disproportionate" offense.18 claim excessive, identify it. general, reasons: (1) rehabilitate offender; (2) incapacitate committing future; (3) deter offenses; (4) assuage desire revenge inapplicable served execution, availability alternative means preventing violating future, concern.19 left justifications punishment.20 59 rationale adequately justifies classes reasonably effect. reaching stated peculiarly within judiciary.21 used opposed finding, Legislature purported make, gauging juries. 60 Moreover, argues remain potential defined conduct. employ possible impact use;22 murderer's calculus affected jury.23 61 though provide defendants eligible condemn man product considerations alone. Despite mandatory class significantly greater invalidated trier circumstance, unrelated perhaps settled consideration—indeed aspect character—relevant offense.24 rest considerations. 62 context therefore, appropriate, nonexcessive depend justification. described Gregg: 63 "In society's outrage offensive unappealing many, asks citizens legal processes self-help vindicate wrongs." 2930 JJ.) omitted).25 64 analysis, ethical judgment—an called "moral guilt" defendant. 800-801, 3378. expresses sensibility—its demand retribution—it follows, believe, representative cross section unjustifiable avoided. VI authors federal guarantees uniformly special exercise plenary power citizen. jurisprudence, played legitimating justice. 66 "The Constitutions reflect profound enforced administered. oppression Government. Those wrote constitutions knew protect unfounded enemies responsive higher authority. framers strove create judiciary insisted further protection action. Providing inestimable corrupt overzealous prosecutor compliant, biased, eccentric preferred common-sense tutored less sympathetic reaction judge, Beyond this, provisions official power—a reluctance powers citizen group Fear unchecked power, typical respects, insistence participation innocence." 155-156, 1450-1451, 491 omitted).26 67 subject assertion power; "critical public system." Taylor 419 522, 530, 95 692, 698, 690 (1975).27 stage—the perspective precede liberty—applies force guilt, proof elements adversarial process.28 depends legitimacy. (1968), observing "a choose more—and less—than death," 1775 omitted), added: [O]ne functions selection maintain system—a line hardly 'the evolving mark progress maturing society.' Trop Dulles, 356 86, 101, 590, 598, 630 (1958) opinion)).29 central amply demonstrated history. felonies, categories "[O]ne developments treatment rejection common-law inexorably offense." Woodson, 301, 2989 critical Juries they felt morally unjustified. adoption enlightened sensibilities: "At Revolution, have, regularity, disregarded oaths automatic consequence verdict. seen, movement separate degrees prompted reformers objected Nineteenth journalists, statesmen, jurists repeatedly observed often deterred palpably statutes. Thereafter, continuing authorization ." 293, 2986 omitted).30 72 Thus lesson teaches jury—and sentencing—has magnitude, forgotten during enactment VII importance theme evaluation post-Furman provided assessed standards: 74 objective index directly involved. said 'one [between case] system.' true influenced recent discriminating relative infrequency verdicts per se. Rather, humane irrevocable sanctions reserved small 181-182, 2929 citations omitted) Witherspoon, 1755, 15).31 75 Highly relevant invalidation broke 76 "[E]vidence incompatibility penalties 510 [88 776] perform' 'between punishment' 'to 1755 15]. Various studies 'with great frequency.' 295, 2987 opinion) H. Kalven & Zeisel, Jury 436 (1966)). "North Carolina's departs markedly respecting consistently Amendments' 'be exercised limits civilized standards.' 598 opinion)). sense. Juries—comprised community32—are institutions judiciary; accurately composition experiences whole, inevitably reliably, segment selected service bench.33 Indeed, preceding discussion demonstrates, stage administered values. fact, empirical indicates ways,34 supporting entrusting creates mandate proportionality critically historically been, continue be, indicator disproportionate convince deserves die, guilt." case," 305, 2991 "introduce[s] uncertainty unreliability 2392, (1980). "creates spite call severe When incompatible commands Amendments." 605, 2965, Once specification verdicts, develops aggregate distinguishes acceptably nonarbitrary way,35 progeny warrant for—indeed tolerate—the exclusion contribution toward linking VIII 80 History, structure me governed sensibilities. Judges mirror sensibilities—the very notion premised realization. Judicial depends. wishes execute citizen, believe acceptable degree assurance proportionality. violation Amendments. Part remainder judgment, respectfully dissent. limitation felonies. are, 4-year 3-year limit prosecutions 775.15 governs. Manucy Wadsworth, 293 345, 347 (Fla.1974). follows: "Ladies gentlemen, your duty you conscientiously lack No juror, pride hastily formed expressed, agree. Yet, terminating acquiesce contrary You listen other's views, talk spirit candor possible, conclusion, disposed of." 817-818. commonly referred Allen "hammer" charge. 492, 154, 528 (1896). agreement parties, polled. Sentencing 28-29 (Jan. 26, 1976). January 1976, identical currently directed outweighed Fla.Laws, ch. 72-724. directs §§ 921.141(2)(b), (3)(b) (1983), amended 1979 79-353. precluded considering nonstatutory Cf. 947, 3423, (1983) note addressed assumed (1973); 215-217, 1999-2000 (Stewart, improperly conferred district enumerated Major Crimes Act, U.S.C. 1153, 3242). doubt following colloquy open court: "THE COURT: Do run submitting course—and submit first-degree, second-degree, manslaughter. "If don't charge, main alternatives [defense counsel] them. that? "MR. SPAZIANO: Yes, Honor. Are sure? I'm waiving. figure killed." 753-754. 2931, JJ.); 286-291, 2750-2753, (1972) concurring), carefully scrutinized States' schemes minimize capricious manner. valid penological choosing among 876-877, 2742-2743, 788-789, 3372, Godfrey 420, 428-429, 1759, 1764-1765, 398 (1980); 360-361, 1205-1206, 254-260, 2967-2970, 196-207, 2936-2941; time, 879, 2744; 110-112, 874-875; 601-605, 2963-2965, 197, 2396; 303-304, 2990-2991, bear ability constitutionality so. capable options ABA Standards Criminal 18-1.1, Commentary, pp. 18.21-18.22 (2nd 1980) (reserving disapproval sentencing). 188-195, 2932-2935 What accept Twenty-nine recommends requested court. Ark.Stat.Ann. 41-1301 (1977); Cal.Penal Code Ann. 190.3 (West Supp.1984); Colo.Rev.Stat. 16-11-103 (1978 Supp.1983); Conn.Gen.Stat. 53a-46a Del.Code Ann., Tit. 11-4209 (1979 Supp.1982); Ga.Code 17-10-30 17-10-32 Ill.Rev.Stat., 38, ¶ 9-1 (Supp.1984); Ky.Rev.Stat. 532.025(1)(b) (Supp.1982); La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 905.8 Md.Ann.Code, 27, 413 (Supp.1983); Mass.Gen.Laws 279, 68, Miss.Code 99-19-101 Mo.Rev.Stat. 565.006 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 630.5 N.J.Stat.Ann. 2C:11-3(c) 1982); N.M.Stat.Ann. 31-20A-3 (1981); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000 Ohio Rev.Code 2929.03 Okla.Stat., 21, 701.11 Pa.Cons.Stat. 9711(f) S.C.Code 16-3-20 S.D.Comp.Laws 23A-27A-4 (1979); Tenn.Code 39-2-203 Tex.Code 37.071 (Vernon 1981 Utah 76-3-207 Va.Code 19.2-264.4 Wash.Rev.Code 10.95.030 Wyo.Stat. 6-2-102 U.S.C.App. 1473(c). Nevada, agree, panel Nev.Rev.Stat. 175.554, 175.556 Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, alone Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703 (Supp.1983-1984); Idaho 19-2515 Mont.Code 46-18-301 Neb.Rev.Stat. 29-2520 (1979). Besides Alabama Indiana. Ala.Code 13A-5-46 Ind.Code 35-50-2-9 (Supp.1984). Solem Helm, 277, 288-290, 3001, 3008-3009, 637 provides: "Excessive bail required, fines cruel inflicted." incorporated E.g., Robinson 370 660, 666, 1417, 1420, 758 (1962); Louisiana Francis Resweber, 329 459, 374, 376, 422 (1947) 289, 3009; 306, 3018 2389-2390, Rummel Estelle, 445 263, 272, 1133, 1138, 382 2869, 357-358, 1204-1205, "Death truly awesome calculated killing human involves, nature, denial executed humanity. contrast plight evident. An prison lose rights.' prisoner retains, rights religion, punishments, 'person' equal member family. retains access courts. His irrevocable. Apart grounded fallibility, inflicted innocent men, know lot whose unconstitutionally secured later, retroactively applied, holdings inflicted, yet finality precludes relief. indeed 'lost 19th proponent punishing criminals declared, 'When hung, end relations him. saying, "You fit world, chance elsewhere." ' 290, 2752 concurring) (citation Stephen, Punishments, Fraser's Magazine 753, 763 (1864)). 2760 ("The forms kind. total irrevocability. rehabilitation finally, absolute renunciation embodied humanity"). treats one. explicitly past. Bell 642-643, n., 2977, 2981, 1010 609, 16, 2967, aspects precise arise 246, 2963 my description containing holding 971, judgment), incorrect. Death vacated upheld certiorari permissibility Ex Post Facto 284, 2994. raised decided. 813, 3385 (O'CONNOR, 603-604, 2871-2872 part); 288, 2983, analysis decency: "[T]he society. ask dignity core [T]he totally gratuitous suffering." 182-183, Rhodes Chapman, 452 337, 346, 2399, Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 103, 285, 251 (1976). contends, suffering 291-292, 3010; 789-793, 3372-3374; 592-596, 2866-2868, Roberts 325, 352-354, 3014-3016, 974 (WHITE, 179-181, 2928-2929 Andres 740, 767-770, 880, 893-894, 1055 (1948) (Frankfurter, 525-527, nn. 2-8, 1779-1780, Douglas, J.); Brief Amicus Curiae O.T.1970, Crampton 204, 36, 132-137. British derived Magna Carta English Declaration Rights. 284-285, 3006-3007; 169-170, 2923-2924 316-322, 2765-2769, (MARSHALL, concurring); 99-101, 597-598, 249-257, 2731-2736 (Douglas, 291-295, 2753-2755 309-310, 2762-2763 314, 2764 364-366, 2790-2791 599-600, 2961-2962 298-299, 2988-2989 Ehrhardt Levinson, Legislative Response Furman: Exercise Futility?, J.Crim.L. "allowing Furman," 508, 512 Johnson 1069, 1074 (Fla.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 882, 364, 191 Douglas 373 895, 897 (Fla.1979) curiam). 875, 2741, 2933-2936 221-224, 2947-2948 discounting worked technically practical confronts twice. sensitive sentiment recommendation. advantage attention Attorney General aware hand, victims encourages face election 83 recommend mercy thereafter thesis matter obtain pleaded waived innocence, enpanelment render separately 921.141(1) Dobbert, 295-296, 2299-2300 (citing (Fla.1975); 248-249, (same). stated: "[I]t appear lead, anything, consistency experienced analogous 2966 Of challenging 4, statement arbitrariness identified prediction borne out. Not likely Radelet Vandiver, Penalty Appeals, Criminology B. Petitioner. doubtful disparity; 3006; Enmund, 788, 3372; 2399; 591-592, 2865-2866 102-103, 171-173, 2924-2925 Weems 217 371, 544, 550, 793 (1910). advanced JJ.), placed reliance upholding Amendment, mentioned seven Justices voted uphold companion 350-356, 3013-3017 dissenting, BURGER, REHNQUIST, event, constitutional, held, 461-462. 354-355, 3015-3016 183-186, 2929-2931 233, 2973 wrote: suggest penalties, refuting view. assume safely murderers, act passion, others, undoubtedly deterrent. contemplated murders, hire, cold precedes act. prisoner, adequate. complex factual resolution statistical terms local conditions flexibility just effort define probably effective deterrent." 185-186, (footnotes citation today, 461. 798-800, 3378 (imposition lacking intent kill attenuated deterrence); 2983 part) purport advance anomalous generally 604-608, 2964-2967 431 633 curiam); 333-334, 3006 303-305, 2990-2992 271-272, 2956, California Ramos, 992, 1006, 3446, 3456, 1171 798, 3377. 308, 2761 Brown 323, 330, 2214, 2221, 159 (1980) Burch 441 130, 135, 99 1623, 1626, Ballew 435 229-230, 1029, 1033-1034, 234 BLACKMUN, J.,); Apodaca Oregon, 406 404, 410, 1628, 1632, 184 (1970). Humphrey Cady, 405 504, 509, 1048, 1052, 394 438, 1857, 270 209-210, 2309. Accord, 201-202, 1464-1465, (1971); 388-389, 2803-2804 439-441, 2828-2829 Note, Federalism: Constraints Allocation Decisionmaking Power, Stan.L.Rev. 787, 810-820 874; 2960-2961 245-247, 2729-2731 297-299, 2756-2757 339, 2777 McGautha, 197-202, 1462-1465; 886 794-796, 3375-3376; 596-597, 2868-2869 Duren 439 357, 664, 579 valuable article, Professor Gillers written: "Intuitively, rules assure 'fair cross-section community,' twelve sentiment, enhancing likelihood, collectively represent—by race, sex, economic class—the communities come. size consequently try say, speaks community. assess 'belief' 'conscience' community's. Whichever does, seem substantially speaking mind. intuitive expectation convey reliably treating culpability trials. related area, stressed assuring 'meaningful participation,' accepted idea segments bring 'perspectives influence deliberation result.' addition, decreasing reflecting minority viewpoints. conclusions representativeness inference sentiment. values, whereas guilt-determination predominantly factfinding, area." Gillers, Who Dies, 129 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1, 63-65 respected study disagree percent show Some Data Juror Attitudes Toward 37-50 caution, pre-Furman guidance 37-38, 29. either, wide disparity era proportionality, sensibility overrides tends continued era. illustrate point. quite horrible, weak, resting largely uncorroborated testimony addict bragged killed women, led body. sufficiently him, troubled possibility mistake made, coupled suffered head injuries old induced personality change, 35, (McDonald, dissenting), trained react differently Melville, Billy Budd (Pocket Books 1972) ("For compassion share mindful paramount obligations strive scruples tend enervate Not, hide myself exceptional Speculatively regarded, casuists. acting casuists moralists, practical, martial practically dealt with"). 54, 881 judgment); 878-879, 2743-2744; 196-198, 200-204, 2936-2937, 2938-2939 id. 2947-2949

Category: 0