« Still time to register for "Understanding Drug Sentencing" conference former AG Eric Holder and Piper Kerman keynote | Main | "Criminal Justice Secrets" »
October 7, 2021
Oregon Supreme Court rules legislative change renders prior death sentence now violates state constitution's proportionality requirements
The Oregon Supreme Court had a notable unanimous ruling today which finds a state death sentence unconstitutional in a way that, according to this press piece, could mean that many or even all those now on the state's death row will be able to get their death sentences overturned. The ruling in Oregon v. Bartol, 368 Or 598 (Oct. 7, 2021) (available here), substantively concludes this way:
Legislative enactments are strong indicators of those standards, and the enactment of SB 1013 shows that the legislature has determined that, regardless of when it was committed, conduct that was previously classified as “aggravated murder” but is now classified as “murder in the first degree” does not fall within the narrow category of crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed. Importantly, that moral judgment stands apart from the question of retroactivity. Although the legislature did not make SB 1013 retroactive as to sentences imposed before its effective date, the enactment of the bill itself reflects a judgment that conduct that was previously classified as “aggravated murder” does not fall within the narrow category of conduct that can be punished by death, as opposed to lesser sentences, including life imprisonment. Consequently, maintaining defendant’s death sentence in this case would violate two special proportionality requirements that, under Article I, section 16, apply to the death penalty: the requirement that the death penalty “be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes’ and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of execution,’ ” Roper, 543 US at 568 (quoting Atkins, 536 US at 319), and the requirement that there be “a fundamental, moral distinction” between crimes that are punishable by death and those that are not, Kennedy, 554 US at 438. Maintaining his death sentence would allow the execution of a person for conduct that the legislature has determined no longer justifies that unique and ultimate punishment, and it would allow the execution of a person for conduct that the legislature has determined is no more culpable than conduct that should not result in death. Therefore, in light of the legislature’s enactment of SB 1013, we conclude that defendant’s sentence violates Article I, section 16.
October 7, 2021 at 02:50 PM | Permalink
Comments
great opinion from a great court litigated by great attorneys!
Posted by: Michael Levine | Oct 7, 2021 3:05:58 PM
Keri Blakinger
@keribla
#breaking Texas death row prisoner Stephen Barbee - who was scheduled for execution Tues [10/12]- just got a stay for the same reason John Ramirez did last month: He wants his pastor to lay hands on him & pray as he dies but TDCJ won't allow it. Here's the order:
https://t.co/4c8Rb4USrf?amp=1
Posted by: Joe | Oct 7, 2021 6:33:16 PM
Thanks, Joe. Will blog.
Posted by: Doug B | Oct 8, 2021 9:30:33 AM