Media coverage of the penalty phase of Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz’s trial illustrates something important. Namely, the challenge of jury responsibilities in a first-degree murder trial.
America is a diverse nation. The jury process is intended to represent this aspect of our society. In theory, if 12 people are selected to hear information, 12 unconnected people from different backgrounds with different ideologies will find the same truth. We all know how difficult it is to find five people who agree on what to eat for lunch! So, the thinking goes, finding 12 people to agree on a verdict must make it correct.
At least that is the theory. In most criminal cases, it likely works. I say most cases because first-degree murder juries are different.
In a first-degree murder trial, the jury must submit a sentencing recommendation to the judge. This recommendation is either for a life sentence or the death penalty. That means these juries must be death penalty certified. Every member of the jury panel must agree that capital punishment is acceptable. I believe this taints the entire jury process.
Consider that anyone with anti-death-penalty beliefs is already disqualified. Does this mean a person who opposes the death penalty is less capable of knowing the truth? Does this mean we can only trust someone’s opinion who supports the death penalty? In most instances, the death penalty is a polarizing topic. By disqualifying everyone who opposes the death penalty, we could be eliminating an entire demographic of people and their beliefs. This could provide a jury panel too similar in thought. Top line: I think a death-penalty-certified jury is more inclined to convict.
Don’t misunderstand me. I believe the death penalty is appropriate in extreme cases. The problem is that I also believe many innocent people have been convicted by prosecution-minded, death-penalty-certified juries and put to death unjustly. Still, jury selection and sentencing processes for first-degree murder can be improved.
For one, the penalty phase should be conducted by a panel of experts. Medical examiners, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, judges, and other qualified experts, experts who understand the complexities involved in evaluating a crime and the criminal. Under the current system, expert witnesses, some with doctorate degrees, already testify for jurors with no experience in the complicated fields of study that are relevant to the evidence at trial. By exchanging jury involvement in sentencing for a panel of experts to evaluate the technical information of murder cases, we could have more consistent sentencing and more sound convictions.
I think these changes would help our judicial system live up to the promise of our country.
Robert Lefleur is a former prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections and a prison consultant.
