[Sabertooth]

The 7-2 ruling affects the way death sentences are imposed in at least five states and means that more than 150 death sentences must be reconsidered. Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment. The court held that such a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury....

None of the cases attacks the basic constitutionality of capital punishment for the general population...

It was not immediately clear what will happen to inmates in those states. Some lawyers have said death row inmates' sentences could be commuted to life in prison, as was done when the Supreme Court put a temporary halt to the death penalty in the 1970s. Or the inmates could be resentenced, with some receiving death sentences all over again.

Well, if this decision turns on the right to trial by jury and not the constitutionality of capital punishment, then it stands to reason that any sentence, and not just the death penalty, that isn't decided by a jury must be thrown out. That would include life sentences.

Therefore, if we follow the court's logic here, every signle one of these sentences is going to have to go back before a jury for penalty phase, or the convicted capital murderers will have to be released. The automatic commutation of the death penalty to life in prison, as happened in the 1970s, would not apply, since that turned on the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Ammendment, not the "jury of his peers" clause.

But of course, some reason would have to be contorted not to release these murderers, since no one would seriously suggest that they all be released.

I don't really have a sense of what the Framers would say on this matter, but it seems that the can of worms has only just begun to spill.

[Sir Gawain]

signle

Aha!

[Mr. Bird]

Well, if this decision turns on the right to trial by jury and not the constitutionality of capital punishment, then it stands to reason that any sentence, and not just the death penalty, that isn't decided by a jury must be thrown out. That would include life sentences.

I follow you here. Seems odd that it could only apply to death sentences.

Therefore, if we follow the court's logic here, every signle one of these sentences is going to have to go back before a jury for penalty phase, or the convicted capital murderers will have to be released

I don't think so. In the normal course of events, the convicted murderer is not released before sentencing. These cats aren't going anywhere.

[Sandy]

Well, if this decision turns on the right to trial by jury and not the constitutionality of capital punishment, then it stands to reason that any sentence, and not just the death penalty, that isn't decided by a jury must be thrown out.

The question is not who determines sentences. The issue here is who determines the facts, judges or juries. Ring was convicted of felony murder, meaning someone was killed in the course of a felony, and no matter how many people were involved in the felony and no matter who actually committed the murder, all persons involved in the felony can be convicted of the murder. According to the law, Ring could then only be sentenced to death if the judge determined that he was the person who actually pulled the trigger. During the sentencing hearing, the judge accepted the testimony of Ring's accomplice, who fingered Ring as the triggerman. But the jury never heard this testimony at trial. The jury in fact heard no evidence that identified Ring as the actual killer at all.

If the state wants to sentence him to death for being the actual killer, then the state should prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that he is in fact the actual killer. I think it's a good decision.