High Court Cites 6th Amendment in Overturning State Death Penalty Statutes
Feature Story by Menna Demessie - 6/27/2002
In a closely watched decision released June 24, the Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated Arizona’s death penalty statute, holding that by allowing a judge, rather than a jury, to find facts necessary for the imposition of the death penalty, the statute violated the defendant’s 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury.This decision marks the second time in a week that the Supreme Court has invalidated state death penalty statutes as unconstitutional. Earlier this week, the Court held that executing persons who are mentally retarded was inconsistent with the constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
“The Supreme Court and state legislative bodies are joining voices from across the political spectrum in calling for reform,” said Wayne Smith, Executive Director of The Justice Project. “The question is no longer if the system is flawed, but what are we going to do about it.”
The ruling in Ring v. Arizona overturns death penalty laws in five states – Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Colorado and Nebraska -- calling into question whether 168 death row inmates in those states will be put to death. The ruling could also affect some or all death sentences in four other states, including Florida, where 370 inmates await execution. Nationwide, about 3,700 people await execution for crimes committed in the 38 states that allow the death penalty.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and was joined by an unusual alliance of conservative and liberal justices: Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate opinion in which he agreed with the outcome.
“The Supreme Court, like so many other institutions in our society, has rightly expressed deep reservations about the way the death penalty is being implemented,” said Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “[This] decision potentially affects hundreds of death row inmates and demonstrates how important it has become to review the entire capital punishment process, and to halt executions in the meantime.”
This decision not only has profound implications for the hundreds of inmates currently on death row who had their sentences determined by judges, but also will likely significantly reduce the number of persons sentenced to death in the future.
James S. Liebman, a law professor at Columbia University, told the Washington Post that, "[t]here is quite general agreement that over time and over geography, the likelihood of getting a death sentence is greater from a judge than from a jury."
The Post also quoted Stephen B. Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who has collected statistics from Alabama, as noting that his studies have shown that in Alabama, "you have 83 overrides [of jury verdicts by judges] from life to death and only 7 from death to life."
