• Try a Digital Subscription campaign: inyt2013_bar1_digi_euro_3LFL3 -- 221762, creative: bar1_digi_euro_3LFL3 -- 353957, page: www.nytimes.com/yr/ mo/day/opinion/death-meted-out-by-politicians-in-robes.html, targetedPage: www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/opinion, position: Bar1 • Log In • Register Now • Help • Home Page • Today's Paper • Video • Most Popular Edition: U.S. / Global Search Opinion [ ] Search New York Times [opinion-lo] • World • U.S. • N.Y. / Region • Business • Technology • Science • Health • Sports • Opinion □ Editorials □ Columnists □ Contributors □ Letters □ The Public Editor □ Global Opinion • Arts • Style • Travel • Jobs • Real Estate • Autos Editorial Death Meted Out by Politicians in Robes By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Published: November 18, 2013 In nearly all of the 32 states that permit capital punishment, a jury makes the final decision on whether a defendant will live or die. Not so in Alabama, where elected judges may override a jury verdict of life in prison and unilaterally impose a death sentence. Today's Editorials • Editorial: A New G.O.P. Excuse for Doing Nothing (November 19, 2013) • Editorial: Cholesterol Guidelines Under Attack (November 19, 2013) Opinion Twitter Logo. Connect With Us on Twitter For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT. Since 1982, Alabama judges have overridden 95 such verdicts, sentencing defendants to death even though the jury voted for life — many times by a vote of 12 to 0. This bizarre arrangement is the result of a state law requiring that capital punishment be imposed when a crime’s aggravating factors, like an especially heinous murder or one committed for hire, outweigh the mitigating factors, like a defendant’s age or mental capacity. But regardless of how a jury weighs those factors, its verdict is advisory only. A judge may then weigh them differently and override the verdict without explanation. In more than 90 percent of overrides, judges chose death after a jury chose life. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to this law, which appears to violate a 2002 ruling that capital defendants “are entitled to a jury determination of any fact” necessary to sentence them to death. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a 12-page opinion, joined partly by Justice Stephen Breyer, dissenting from the court’s decision not to hear the current case, Woodward v. Alabama. While the court previously upheld the Alabama law in 1995, she noted, the state is now alone in overriding jury verdicts of life. Because it undermines “the sanctity of the jury’s role in our system of criminal justice,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, the Alabama law is “constitutionally suspect.” Justice Sotomayor rightly identified the reason Alabama’s judges impose more death sentences per capita than any other state. The judges, she wrote, “who are elected in partisan proceedings, appear to have succumbed to electoral pressures.” The judges are not shy about this fact. A 2000 campaign ad for one said he “has the tough-on-crime record to be chief justice.” Another bragged that he “looked into the eyes of murderers and sentenced them to death.” One judge told The Birmingham News in 2011 that voter reaction does “have some impact, especially in high-profile cases.” Nor is it any more comforting when the judges decide to explain themselves. One judge justified his override of a life sentence for a white defendant because otherwise, he said, “I would have sentenced three black people to death and no white people.” In his dissent from the 1995 ruling upholding the Alabama law, former Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that allowing a judge to override a jury verdict in this way severs “the death penalty from its only legitimate mooring.” The death penalty should have no legitimate mooring at all in modern American society, and it certainly should not be imposed by a judge who is worried about keeping his job. [meter] Meet The New York Times’s Editorial Board » A version of this editorial appears in print on November 19, 2013, on page A24 of the New York edition with the headline: Death Meted Out by Politicians in Robes. * Subscribe to the International New York Times newspaper and save up to 65% Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics Alabama Capital Punishment Courts and the Judiciary Jury System [1388695317439_us] Banned at home and noticed by Oscars Also on NYTimes.com • Oscar season preview • Learn about Christian Bale's character secrets nytimes.com [13_2259_INYT_Anon_Euro_300x79_ER1] [moth_rever] [moth_forwa] Inside NYTimes.com Opinion » Opinion » Offending Television Theater Business Bloomberg » Op-Ed: » » or Opinion » N.Y. / Fired? Speaking ‘Downton Sports » Region » U.S. » Speak No Theater » In Your From Ore Truth? Abbey’ Op-Ed: Evil Opinion » Seat to Returns Europeans Delivering Books » but on Nuggets, Room for for a United, an Opinion Giving up Your With Debate Fourth in Hating Is Tebow’s Review Houston the right When Toes Peril asks Season Europe New Test of and Its to speak Spidey Op-Ed: whether Table for Bayonne Strip and write Flies No Lethal In Your From Ore speakers ‘Downton Op-Ed: Delivering Two Bridge Clubs freely More, Malfeasance Seat to at the de Abbey’ Europeans an Opinion (Countries) Project Call a strikes Will in Malawi but on Nuggets, Blasio Returns United, Is Tebow’s Is Truce me as the Business? Your With inaugural for a in Hating New Test Assailed unholiest Toes Peril were rude Fourth Europe of deals or merely Season for a speaking writer to for accept. voters. • © 2013 The New York Times Company • Site Map • Privacy • Your Ad Choices • Advertise • Terms of Sale • Terms of Service • Work With Us • RSS • Help • Contact Us • Site Feedback * * DCSIMG