now, as I was blogging...

the 9th Circuit has overturned the death sentences in cases where the judgment was decided by a judge, not a jury.

very interesting. I love the 9th Circuit.

the ruling seems instinctive, and I am actually quite surprised to learn that until 2002, some jurisdictions allowed the judge to decide a death penalty was appropriate, as opposed to life without parole.

I suppose I just don't like the "all powerful judge" idea...that one man take decide that another should die. I am willing to accept a death penalty if 12 (wo)men decide unanimously that the death penalty is appropriate [this is not to say that I entirely agree with the death penalty at all, but just that I prefer a unanimous jury's decision to that of one man, however learned and wise that man may be].

Read the Court's decision in Summerlin v. Stewart.

so in 2002, the Supreme Court held that the sentencing laws require a jury's finding that the death penalty is appropriate, and the judge does not have that power alone.

but the issue now becomes whether to apply that ruling retroactively. the 9th Circuit says yes, other Circuits say no.

hmmmm...here comes the Supreme Court....

general rule = "procedural changes" are not applied retroactively.

but this may not be a simple 'procedural change', but rather a case in which a constitutional right was denied.

does this mean that we must retry the penalty phase before a jury in each of these cases? it seems an absurd and undesireable result.

why not just convert the sentences to life w/o parole?

The crimes were clearly so heinous that a judge was willing to impose the death penalty (presuming the judge is no 'vigilate justice' ), so it seems that the jury's only other option in a capital case would be life w/o parole.

do we really want, as a matter of policy, to continue to enforce older death penalty judgments in similar circumstances, just because we "could" as a matter of law?

don't most people, if they really think about it, have some problems with the notion of the death penalty? not that we don't feel a sense of needing justice/vengeance/life for a life form of atonement. but when you hear that the state executed an inmate, do you feel relief that 'we finally got the bastard'? a sense of righteousness that 'justice has prevailed"? or do you feel just a wee bit sad that another life was extinguished by the government (i.e. you and me and everybody, we the people, ordered that person to die).

UPDATE: how about this guy? he murders a doctor for performing abortions, and feels no remorse. god told him to do it. in fact, he wants other people to do what he did and...[drum roll please]... he wants to die!

firstly, I feel sad that this guy is going to be executed when he is clearly mentally deranged. but assuming he is 'legally sane' (despite being completely bonkers), if the guy actually wants to die, then why should the state kill him? isn't that something like state-condoned suicide? wouldn't a fit punishment in his circumstances be to deny his going to heaven, and keep him here so he can think about it a little longer, like say for the rest of his life????