July 27, 2014
"Grace Notes: A Case for Making Mitigation the Heart of Noncapital Sentencing"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new article by Miriam Gohara that I just came across via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Investigation and presentation of comprehensive life history mitigation is at the heart of successful capital litigation that has contributed to a steady decline in capital sentences. Noncapital incarceration rates have also begun to level, and various legal developments have signaled a re-ascent of more individualized noncapital sentencing proceedings. This return to individualized sentencing invites consideration of whether life history mitigation may, as it has in capital cases, hasten a turn away from mostly retributive punishment resulting in disproportionately harsh noncapital sentencing to a more merciful rehabilitative approach. The robust capital mitigation practice required by today's prevailing professional capital defense norms developed following the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment doctrine requiring individualized capital sentences that account for the unique characteristics of the offender. No such doctrinal imperative applies to noncapital sentencing. As a result, professional noncapital defense sentencing standards, while providing a general basis for various aspects of sentencing advocacy, remain relatively underdeveloped, though the same bases for ameliorating punishment in capital cases should apply with equal practical force to noncapital cases.
At the same time, institutional and doctrinal barriers -- including high caseloads and lack of resources, the prevalence of plea bargaining, and the Supreme Court's “death is different” precedent -- present formidable challenges to routine presentation of life history mitigation in noncapital cases. Therefore, the regular presentation of life history mitigation, lacking a constitutional mandate and operating in a structure different from that of capital sentencing, will depend in the immediate term on the initiative of criminal defense lawyers with the will to consistently present it in noncapital cases. A more widespread adoption of comprehensive noncapital mitigation practice will benefit individual clients, change the expectations of sentencing courts concerning what information they should have available before ordering punishment, and provide insight into the social causes of various types of crimes. Over time, as it has in capital cases, familiarity with the mitigating force of social history may serve as a powerful basis for empathy and amelioration of overly punitive noncapital punishment.
July 27, 2014 at 12:45 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Grace Notes: A Case for Making Mitigation the Heart of Noncapital Sentencing":
As long as there is equal opportunity for life history aggravation by the prosecution, I'm fine with this.
Posted by: Wayne-O | Jul 28, 2014 1:37:46 AM
“The defendant’s motive for committing the offense is one important factor
[in sentencing],” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 485 (1993). Brady v. Maryland provides for discovery materials affecting guilt AND punishment, as a constitutional matter. Sentence mitigation in non-capital cases has ALWAYS been a central responsibility of the defense bar, and that responsibility has been sharpened in an age of 97 percent guilty-plea rates.
This shouldn't be news to the defense bar. That it might be is disconcerting.
Posted by: Jay Hurst | Jul 28, 2014 8:24:49 AM