Court Opinion

ID: 9722836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:52:05.49045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:59:51.684193
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The people address this Court from the past and in the present by several means. They do so through statutes, such as those making up the criminal code, including the death penalty statute before us, recently enacted by elected representatives in the Legislature. They also do so through the provisions of the Indiana Constitution which was drafted long ago by a convention and ratified by popular vote. The Constitution establishes the framework for the government and its relationship to the citizenry, draws its force from the direct ratification of it by popular vote, and takes precedence over statutes contrary to it. Our Indiana Constitution in the Bill of Rights contains the following provision:
“The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation and not of vindictive justice.” Article 1, § 18.
This Court has recently considered whether this provision is an obstacle to the enactment of the death penalty and concluded that it was not. Adams v. State, (1971) 259 Ind. 64, 271 N.E.2d 425. That position was adopted by a three to two margin. In that case I argued in dissent at length in support of a construction that would withhold the power of the Legislature to provide for capital punishment. (See Appendix A) The majority was terse in its contrary holding on this point. (See Appendix B) It is the first principle of constitutional construction and our sworn duty not to rewrite *112or amend the Constitution, but to read it to effectuate the intent and purposes of the Framers. Bell v. Maryland, (1964) 378 U.S. 226, 84 S.Ct. 1814, 12 L.Ed.2d 822. (Concurring opinion of Goldberg, J.) In so doing provisions must be read not as “legislative codes which are subject to continuous revisions with the changing course of events, but as the revelation of the great purposes which were intended to be achieved by the Constitution as a continuing instrument of government.” United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 316, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 1038, 85 L.Ed. 1368. In determining the meaning of the Constitution we have held fast to the guiding propositions that “the words used in the Constitution must be presumed to have been carefully chosen so that each word would have a meaning”, and that “each word must be thought of as having been deliberately selected and intentionally placed as though it had been hammered into the instrument.” Chadwick v. City of Crawfordsville, (1940) 216 Ind. 399, 24 N.E.2d 937.
Ordinarily I would consider myself to be bound through the principle of stare decisis and would uphold this statute in an instance such as this as consistent with Art. 1, § 18. But as Justice Frankfurter aptly stated:
“stare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, however recent and questionable, when adherence involves collision with prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience.” Helvering v. Hallock, (1940) 309 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 444, 451, 84 L.Ed. 605.
Since considering this question in the Adams case, substantial views have surfaced which bear directly upon the proper understanding and applications of Art. 1, § 18, in relation to the penalty of death. This matter has given an added perspective to the penalty of death which placed it again and anew upon a collision course with that state constitutional provision and calls for reconsideration. I do not therefore deem myself constricted by stare decisis.
The new matter to which I refer has arisen as the United States Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of the death penalty. In Gregg v. Georgia, (1976) 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859, Justice Stewart on behalf of himself and Justices Powell and Stevens states:
“In part, capital punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function may be unappealing to many, but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes rather than self-help to vindicate their wrongs.
‘The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by law. When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they “deserve”, then there are sown the seeds of anarchy — of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.’ Furman v. Georgia, supra, 408 U.S., at 308, 92 S.Ct., at 2761 [33 L.Ed.2d 346] (Stewart, J., concurring).
“ ‘Retribution is no longer the dominant objective of the criminal law,’ Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 248, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1084, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), but neither is it a forbidden objective nor one inconsistent with our respect for the dignity of men. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S., at 394-395, 92 S.Ct., at 2806-2807 (Burger, C. J., dissenting); id., at 452-454, 92 S.Ct., at 2835-2836 (Powell, J., dissenting); Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S., at 531, 535-536, 88 S.Ct., at 2153, 2155-2156 [20 L.Ed.2d 1254] (plurality opinion). Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community’s belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death.”
The view espoused here is that in addition to having a deterrent objective, the death *113penalty has another objective which at once is separate, identifiable, and real. It is a retributive, vengeful, and thus vindictive one. Justices White, Rehnquist and the Chief Justice go even further. Concurring in the judgment in Gregg, they refer to reasons appearing in dissent in Roberts v. Louisiana, (1976) 428 U.S. 325,96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974, which include the idea that life imprisonment may be inadequate “to satisfy the need for reprobation or retribution.” At 3015. By adding the concept of reprobation in this context I take them to mean that the death penalty is applied when a life can be declared totally without worth. So viewed, the biological death of the wrongdoer by law is the culmination of a process which has as one of its steps the determination that an extant human life is totally valueless. Justice Blackmun, concurring, refers to his joining in Justice Powell’s dissent in Furman v. Georgia, (1972) 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, in which Justice Powell notes that retribution is not impermissible. Both Justices Marshall and Brennan in dissent in Gregg express the belief that one of the principal purposes served by the death penalty is retribution. The new matter then to which I have alluded is the published fact that all nine justices of the highest court of the land believe that the death penalty is in part vindictive. Seven justices believe that this vindictive principle is consistent with the respect for the dignity of man in the Eighth Amendment, while the remaining two believe that it is not.
No Justice of this Court is bound to accept the characterization of the purposes of the death penalty or the principles underlying it to which the Justices of the United States Supreme Court ascribe. However, their unanimous view, arising as it does in cases involving a very basic issue and calling out visceral individual responses, is entitled to substantial weight. Adventitiously those responses support the views I previously expressed in dissent in Adams, and as complementary to those views leads me anew to the firm belief that Art. 1, § 18, must be removed from the Constitution, if Indiana is to have the death penalty. A form of constitutional amendment tracking a similar provision which was in the Montana Constitution from 1889 to 1972 would suffice to accomplish this purpose. Article III, § 24 of the Montana Constitution of 1889 reads as follows:
“Laws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on the principles of reformation and prevention, but this shall not affect the power of the legislative assembly to provide for punishing offenses by death." (emphasis added)
One can agree that the vindictive, retributive and reprobative objective of the death penalty is not inconsistent with the respect for the dignity of man encompassed within the prohibitions of our constitutions against cruel or unusual punishments, however, one cannot rationally accept the proposition that this objective is consistent with the mandate of Art. 1, § 18. In bringing forth the meaning of this provision of the Constitution the words of it are to be taken in their natural and ordinary sense. Benton County Council v. State ex rel. Sparks, (1946) 224 Ind. 114, 65 N.E.2d 116. The language of this provision is straightforward. We need not stray far from it. Its plain meaning is that principles of reformation must underpin the establishment of criminal penalties to the exclusion of principles of vindictive justice. The death penalty rests upon a foundation which is partially vindictive and is the product of principles of vindictive justice. It is based upon the almost universal and understandable human revulsion to particularly heinous and atrocious crimes and the judgmental response which very often follows closely that the perpetrators of such crimes deserve to be put to death. It is based upon the judgment that there are persons who have conducted themselves in such a dangerous and reprehensible manner and are of such an ungovernable nature that their life is totally worthless. The Indiana Constitution in Art. 1, § 18 bars the State of Indiana from permitting this instinct of man for vengeance and retribution from manifesting itself in the establishment and formulation of criminal penalties.
*114It was said in the majority opinion in Adams v. State, supra, and in previous opinions of this Court as well responding to this issue that the purpose of all punishment is the protection of society. This response misses the mark. The core point of Article 1, § 18 is that society may indeed protect itself through the enactment and enforcement of penal sanctions, but that it nevertheless may not go so far in accomplishing that important and necessary objective as to satisfy the longing and need of the community for revenge and retribution against a wrongdoer. This I believe to be the purpose of Article 1, § 18, and I deem myself as a judge, bound to honor it. I would therefore remand this case with instructions to impose determinate sentences.
APPENDIX A
Whatever may be the case in other jurisdictions, in Indiana the Constitution explicitly sets out that at least one of the functions of punishment must be to reform the offender and that function is absolutely incompatible with the death penalty.
In spite of the obvious, clear meaning of § 18, this Court has in the past upheld the validity of the death penalty. Hawkins v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 116, 37 N.E.2d 79; McCutcheon v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 247, 155 N.E. 544; Rice v. State (1855), 7 Ind. 332; Driskill v. State (1855), 7 Ind. 338. The rationale of this position was set out in Driskill and Rice, and subsequent cases have added nothing to the discussion.
In Driskill, this Court said:
“In connection with this point, it is insisted that the law authorizing the death penalty is in conflict with section eighteen of the bill of rights, which requires the penal code to be founded on principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice. The punishment of death for murder in the first degree, is not, in our opinion, vindictive, but is even-handed justice. There is, indeed, nothing vindictive in our penal laws. The main object of all punishment is the protection of society. With that end in view, the legislature have, in a given case, left it within the discretion of the jury to say when the death penalty shall be inflicted. It is true, one branch of that discretion does not contemplate reform; still, it is the only instance in the law in which the purpose of reformation is not prominent, and it cannot, it seems to us, be allowed to give character to the principles upon which the entire code is founded. The eighteenth section of the bill of rights, when properly construed, requires the penal laws to be so framed as to protect society, and at the same time, as a system, to inculcate the principle of reform. In this view, the present code is, no doubt, founded on the principles of reformation, within the spirit and intent of the constitution. The law which allows the death penalty to be inflicted, must, therefore, be held valid.” (Emphasis added.) 7 Ind. at 342, 343.
In Rice this Court said:
“It is also decided in Driskill v. State, infra, that the death penalty is not in conflict with the 18th section of the first article of our constitution. If any question can be raised before the judiciary upon the discretion of the legislature under that section, we concur that it has not been abused in leaving the question of assessing that penalty to the jury. There are cases beyond the hope of reformation — criminals whose necks have become so hardened ‘that they should suddenly be cut off, and that without remedy.’ ” (Emphasis added.) 7 Ind. at 338.
In the above quotations the Court made several attempts to justify its conclusion that § 18 is no obstacle to the enactment of the death penalty provision by the Legislature. I believe the arguments fail to support that conclusion.
First, the Court stated baldly that the death penalty is not vindictive in nature but is “even-handed justice”. This has no determinable meaning. It might mean that the death penalty is an option which the sentencing authority may choose in all first degree murder cases. As such it is true but beside the point. It might mean that the death penalty is not vindictive because it is *115the taking of the life of the offender who has himself taken a life. This would be the same as claiming that the “eye for an eye” philosophy is not vindictive, when in fact it is the epitome of vindictiveness and re-vengefulness. The exclusive use of the “eye for an eye” philosophy is precisely what is precluded by § 18. Whatever it might have meant to the judge who wrote it, this statement that the death penalty is even-handed justice is not an argument at all, and does not succeed in establishing that the death penalty is not vindictive.
Second, the Court said that the “main object of ail punishment is the protection of society”. Although this is not stated in the Constitution and the Court does not indicate any constitutional basis for the claim, I assume it to be one of the basic objectives of the penal system. However, the need to protect society does not require the death penalty, and there is no reason to adopt this objective to the exclusion of the principle embodied in § 18. If possible we must try to give effect to both objectives of the criminal sanction. This is easily done because there is nothing in § 18 that is incompatible with the objective of protecting society. Section 18 merely precludes a penalty which forecloses all possibility of reformation of the offender. Life imprisonment as a maximum penalty accomplishes both goals and there is no need to choose between them; but the death penalty defeats one of them, the only one specifically set out in the Constitution.
Third, the Court said the requirement that the “penal code” be founded on the principles of reformation did not apply to each and every criminal statute, but merely applies to the entire system, and one instance, where admittedly the penalty does not contemplate reform, does not make the whole system vindictive in violation of § 18. I see no reason to interpret § 18 in this way. The “penal code” is made up of each and every legislative enactment which defines a crime and provides a penalty for a violation thereof; it is the class of all criminal statutes and it is they which must be founded on principles of reformation. The language of § 18 does not indicate any exceptions and the Court offers no valid reason to accept any. The fact recognized by the Court in Driskill, that the death penalty “is the only instance in the law in which the purpose of reformation is not prominent” does not support the argument that the death penalty is constitutional, but on the contrary clearly demonstrates that it is a lone anomaly among the penal laws and that it is at odds with the rest of the body of penal laws and that it is unconstitutional.
Fourth, the Court seemed to rely on the fact that the sentencing authority has the discretionary power in a first degree murder case to impose a penalty of life imprisonment rather than death if it so chooses. Presumably they thought that the existence of this power renders the penalty provision nonvindictive and in conformance with principles of reformation, and, therefore, not in violation of § 18. In my view the power of the sentencing authority to select life imprisonment rather than death does not render the penalty provision constitutional under § 18. The question is, when the death penalty is in fact chosen, is § 18 satisfied? Section 18 means that the sentence actually imposed must leave open the possibility of reformation of the offender. This is not satisfied by the existence of a potential sentence of life imprisonment.
Fifth, in the Rice case, the Court states its firm opinion that those offenders who had been assessed the death penalty were beyond any hope of reformation and, therefore, the principles of reformation did not need to be considered in a death case. I believe this position is erroneous for two reasons: (1) The concept of human nature implicit in § 18 is one which says that every man, no matter how depraved, has the possibility of redemption for his evil ways through a change of heart. Who are we to say any man’s heart is hardened beyond any hope of change? (2) There are no grounds for believing that those persons who receive the death penalty are in fact beyond hope of reformation since the sentencing authority is not required to find that the defendant is non-reformable before assessing the death penalty. The Court is merely saying *116that the imposition of the death penalty is justified because the offender is non-reformable, and we know he is non-reformable because he has received the death penalty-
I would hold that the mandate of § 18 clearly prohibits the death penalty and that no Indiana case has even begun to offer a good counter argument to that position.
APPENDIX B
Likewise appellant’s contention that the death penalty as punishment for the crime of first degree murder is a “vindictive justice” is also without merit. In Driskill v. State (1855), 7 Ind. 338, 343, this court stated:
“The punishment of death for murder in the first degree, is not, in our opinion, vindictive, but is even-handed justice. There is, indeed, nothing vindictive in our penal laws. The main object of all punishment is the protection of society.”
For the reasons stated we are bound by legislative policy and historical rationale, therefore, the appellant’s contention as to the death penalty must fail.