Inglese giuridico - l'analisi del Criminal Law

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

The prosecution must prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the existence of at least one of the following aggravating circumstances in order to create eligibility for the death penalty. The jury must also unanimously agree on the existence of the same aggravating circumstance.

It is constitutionally required that aggravating circumstances narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty (cannot have an agg. cir. that is common to all people)

Narrowing & Individualized Sentencing to avoid arbitrariness or capriciousness

Aggravating Circumstances from MPC:

1. The murder was committed by a convict under sentence of imprisonment;
2. The defendant was previously convicted under another murder or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person;
3. At the time of the murder was committed the defendant also committed another murder;
4. The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons;
5. The murder was

committed while the defendant was engaged or was an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary or kidnapping;

6. The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from lawful custody;

7. The murder was committed for pecuniary gain.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

LOCKETT V. OHIO (1978) SC Rule: The defendant may introduce anything which the defendant chooses to proffer for a sentence LESS than death as long as it is relevant to the defendants:

1. Record;
2. Character, or;
3. Circumstances of the offense.

Standard of Proof: Prove mitigator outweighs aggravators by a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence to the satisfaction of one juror (this is all it takes for a hung jury à punishment less than death):

Some general examples of mitigating circumstances:

1. Finding God, victims of abuse

a) The defendant acted with premeditation and malice aforethought, showing a complete disregard for human life

b) The defendant was mentally ill and committed the murder as a result of their illness

c) The defendant has no prior criminal history, which may be relevant to their character

d) The murder was committed during a period of extreme mental or emotional disturbance

e) The victim was a willing participant in the defendant's actions or gave consent to the murder

f) The defendant believed they had a moral justification or extenuating circumstances for committing the murder

g) The defendant played a minor role in a murder committed by another person

h) The defendant acted under duress or the control of another person

i) At the time of the murder, the defendant may not have fully understood the criminality of their actions

The defendant's mental capacity to understand and conform to the law, impaired by mental disease, defect, or intoxication.

The age of the defendant at the time of the crime, too young to recognize the criminality of their conduct.

The MPC (Model Penal Code) provides a list of mitigating circumstances, but the actual enumeration is less significant than the defendant's constitutional right to present any relevant mitigating evidence or circumstances, whether listed by statute or not. See MPC §210.6 "and any other facts that it deems relevant".

Reverse mitigating circumstances: In People v. Kuntu, the court dismissed the state's contention of using a mitigating circumstance as an aggravating circumstance, stating that the prosecutor's creative use of a normally extenuating factor would have been proper if the legislature had not already designated absence of criminal history as mitigating.

Weighing the circumstances: MPC §210.6 states "The Court, in"

1. At least "one of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in Subsection (3)";
2. "there are no mitigating circumstances SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL to call for leniency."

This means that for a death penalty verdict we need:

"Call for leniency".- UNANIMITY RULE: the death verdict has to be unanimous (it is now written in all statues).- Victim Impact Evidence:Permissible: For family members to talk about their loss (pecuniary and emotional) and the qualities of the victim.Not Permissible: Opinions as to punishment; opinions of the killer. The SC declined to allow this twice in the past because of the risk that it might take the Death Penalty back to the arbitrary phase but now the new SC has allowed it.Categorical Limits on the Death Penalty1. The Mens Rea Limit: A Reprise on Felony Murder:TISON V. ARIZONA (1987): Petitioner brothers, along with other members of their family, planned and effected the escape of their father (Gary Tison) from prison, where he was serving a life sentence for having killed a guard during a previous escape. Petitioners entered the prison with a chest filled with guns, armed their father and another convicted murderer (Randy Greenawalt), later helped to abduct, detain, and rob a."

family (Lyons) of four, and watched their father and the other convict murder the members of that family with shotguns. Although they both later stated that they were surprised by the shooting, neither petitioner made any effort to help the victims, but drove away in the victims' car with the rest of the escape party. After the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed petitioners' individual convictions for capital murder under that State's felony murder and accomplice liability statutes, petitioners collaterally attacked their death sentences in state postconviction proceedings, alleging that Enmund v. Florida, which had been decided in the interim, required reversal (Enmund was the driver of the "get-away" car). However, the Arizona Supreme Court determined that they should be executed, holding that Enmund requires a finding of "INTENT TO KILL," and interpreting that phrase to include situations in which the defendant (1) intended, (2) contemplated, or (3)

It was anticipated that lethal force would or might be used, or that life would or might be taken in accomplishing the underlying felony. Despite finding that petitioners did not specifically intend that the victims die, plan the homicides in advance, or actually fire the shots, the court ruled that the requisite intent was established by evidence that petitioners played an active part in planning and executing the breakout and in the events that lead to the murders, and that they did nothing to interfere with the killings nor to disassociate themselves from the killers afterward. Although only one of the petitioners testified that he would have been willing to kill, the court found that both of them could have anticipated the use of lethal force.

Held: Although petitioners neither intended to kill the victims nor inflicted the fatal wounds, the record might support a finding that they had the culpable mental state of reckless indifference to human life. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the

The Supreme Court has deemed the death penalty as disproportionate in the case of a defendant whose participation in a felony that results in murder is major and whose mental state is one of reckless indifference. A survey of state felony murder laws and judicial decisions after Enmund indicates a societal consensus that that combination of factors may justify the death penalty even without a specific "intent to kill." Reckless disregard for human life also represents a highly culpable mental state that may support a capital sentencing judgment in combination with major participation in the felony resulting in death. Because the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed these death sentences upon a finding that the defendants "intended, contemplated, or anticipated that lethal force would or might be used, or that life would or might be taken," the case must be remanded.

Good question: what would the Tison brother have been convicted of in a state that did not have a felony-murder statute?

First-degree murder? Second-degree murder? Manslaughter?

DEATH ELIGIBILITY in felony murder situations in cases where Δ (any one of these, not all required):

1. Enmund Rule (the Enmund rule, after Tison includes even the element of Tison):

   1. Killed or
   2. Attempted to Kill or
   3. Intended to Kill

   - OR -

2. Tison Rule:

   1. was a substantial participant in the underlying felony, and
   2. manifested a RECKLESS (aware of sub. unjust. risk and disregard) indifference to the value of human life.

Mental retardation and Youth:

LOCKETT V. OHIO (1978) defendant has the right to offer evidence of any mental disability.

ATKINS V. VIRGINIA (2002) Court ruled that the 8 Amendment places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life of a mentally retarded offender (Atkins was 59 of IQ).

Court looked to:

1. Evolving Standards of Decency (Roper (disavows the ability of any individual underage from the mental state requisite to necessitate the death penalty) and Atkins), providing

that the basic test for cruel and unusual punishment is the “progress of amaturing society” and whether a punishment offend “evolving standards of decency”,as:

1. The position of civic and religious organization;
2. International opinion (Justice Renhquist scathing dissented arguing that the viewpoint of the other country and organization should not be accorder any weight);
3. The justices own judgment.

2. Goals of Punishment: capital punishment can serve as ad deterrent only when murder is the result of premeditation and deliberation;

20 Reckless: aware of a substantial, unjustifiable risk and acts anyway, must be aware of the risk and disregard the risk.

21 RECKLESSLY (imprudente): aware of a substantial, unjustifiable risk and acts anyway, must be aware of the risk and disregard the risk. 363.

3. International Standards – controversial.

ROPER V. SIMMONS (S.C. 2005) held t