An Oregon Justice Suggests Revisiting the Death Penalty
Oregon State Supreme Court Justice Martha Walters concurred in a recent ruling affirming a death sentence in the state, but also suggested a review of the constitutionality of capital punishment. In her concurring opinion in State of Oregon v. Michael Andre Davis, Justice Walters stated:
I concur in the court's decision to affirm defendant's conviction and, with respect to each assignment of error that the court discusses, I concur with its reasoning. Although I also concur in the court's decision to affirm defendant's sentence of death, I must explain more fully.
Defendant raises many arguments as to the constitutionality of the death penalty that this court previously has rejected. I did not participate in those decisions, and although I reserve my right to reconsider some or all of them, I feel constrained, at least in this case, by the doctrine of stare decisis. That doctrine requires the balancing of the "undeniable importance of stability in legal rules and decisions" with the "important need to be able to correct past errors." Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or 38, 53, 11 P3d 228 (2000).
Recently, jurists who had voted many times to affirm sentences of death have reassessed the constitutionality of the death penalty in light of their experiences with its administration and objective evidence of the evolving standards of decency. See Baze v. Rees, ___ US ___, 128 S Ct 1520, 1551, 170 L Ed 2d 420 (2008) (Stevens, J., concurring) (stating that, in his experience, "the death penalty represents the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes[]" (citation omitted)); Doss v. State, ___ So 2d ___, ___, 2008 WL 5174209, *15-16 (Miss 2008) (Diaz, J., dissenting) (drawing upon judicial and state experience to conclude that despite efforts to limit arbitrary or disproportionate sentences, state system "does not answer Eighth Amendment concerns -- it exacerbates them.").
This court also has emphasized that the pull of precedent "'is strong, but it is not inexorable.'" Stranahan, 331 Or at 53 (quoting Hungerford v. Portland Sanitarium, 235 Or 412, 415, 384 P2d 1009 (1963)). The degree to which any opinion binds future tribunals "depends, of necessity, on [that opinion's] agreement with the spirit of the times or the judgment of subsequent tribunals upon its correctness as a statement of the existing or actual law." Id. at 54 (internal quotation marks, citations, and emphasis omitted).
The strength of the bond of an earlier ruling is directly proportionate to the moral and intellectual authority that continues to inform our understanding of that earlier holding. When presented with the opportunity to do so, I urge this court to consider our state's experience in imposing the death penalty and to examine its constitutionality anew.
The Oregonian reported, "Oregon Supreme Court justice suggests death penalty review."
Justice Martha L. Walters wrote in a concurring opinion on a Portland case that the court should "consider our state's experience in imposing the death penalty and to examine its constitutionality anew."
Walters, who joined the court as an associate justice in October 2006 after practicing law in Eugene for nearly 30 years, declined to be interviewed regarding the opinion.
Her concurrence came as the court affirmed the aggravated murder conviction and death penalty sentence of Michael Andre Davis.
Willamette Week has, "Supreme Court Justice Urges Death Penalty Rethink."
In case you missed it over the holidays, Stephen Beaven of The Oregonian reports that state Supreme Court Justice Martha Walters wants her colleagues to review the constitutionality of Oregon's death-penalty statute.
For a primer on how much money the state spends pursuing capital punishment; why only death-row inmates who volunteer for execution actually get put to death under the 24-year-old law; and why just about everyone who cares about the issue on either side is unhappy with capital punishment in Oregon, we humbly suggest the Supreme Court justices start their review here.
And as we reported in a follow-up Murmur, Walters isn't the only person seeking a possible change in the law this year.
"Oregon justice suggests death penalty review," is the AP report via KMTR-TV.
Her recommendation came as the court affirmed the aggravated murder conviction and the death penalty for Michael Andre Davis.
Although Davis had been a suspect since the November 1991 killing of a couple at a Portland hotel, prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to convict him until 2005.
Comments