Witherspoon v illinois

Witherspoon v. Illinois

The death penalty is legal in a large number of states but in some states it is rarely applied. This is because a jury has to unanimously agree to the sentence of death. This is a difficult decision that can weigh on the mind of the juror. In death penalty cases prosecutors will look for potential jurors who agree with the death penalty to ensure a criminal defendant receives this punishment. In Witherspoon v. Illinois and Lockhart v. McCree the Supreme Court ruled potential jurors cannot be excluded from the jury because they do not believe they will be able to sentence a juror to death.

In capital punishment cases the jury is given the power over life or death. In other words the jury decides if the criminal offender will receive life in prison for their crime or the death penalty. For prosecutors the threat of the death penalty is a good tool for persuading capital murder defendants to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence but the death penalty is also applied to remove dangerous threats permanently from society. Because capital punishment is so final it has been opposed and appealed to the Supreme Court many time for many reasons. One cause for appeal involves the death qualification.

Death qualification is a part of voir dire during which prospective jurors are questioned regarding their beliefs about capital punishment (Butler, 2007). Potential jurors are asked about their feelings about the death penalty. A potential juror cannot have strong feelings either way. In other words they must not be over zealous in wanting to apply the death penalty or be totally against applying the death penalty. The goal of the death qualification is to eliminate jurors that cannot be totally impartial in determining whether or not to apply the death penalty. Jurors that pass the death qualification test could become juror in the death penalty case.

In the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois the defendant appealed his death sentence claiming he was not afforded an impartial jury because any juror against the death penalty was dismissed. The result was a jury filled with jurors very, willing to apply the death penalty against the capital defendant. Witherspoon claimed his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated as well as his 14th Amendment right to due process. Without jurors on the jury unwilling to impose the death penalty the sentenced received could not be fair. In Illinois state law supported the dismissal of jurors unwilling to apply the death penalty in capital cases.

The Supreme Court ruled in this case jurors cannot be dismissed based on their general scruples against capital punishment but if there is a clear opposition to the death penalty were the potential juror would never vote for death then they can be excluded. This ruling was affirmed in Lockhart v. McCree when the defendant appealed claiming death qualifications were unconstitutional and citing recent empirical studies (ACL, 2012). The lower courts agree with the empirical studies but the high court reaffirmed the decisions made in Witherspoon v. Illinois finding death qualification do not violate a criminal defendants Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment.

The state of Illinois no longer has the death penalty despite its past support of putting capital murderers to death. States that still have the death penalty should be subject to death qualification. While no one is comfortable with sending someone to their death it is only fair for jurors to have no strong feelings one way or another. Jurors must be impartial but they cannot be impartial if they have strong feelings one way or the other over the death penalty. If a criminal defendant is subject to the death penalty there cannot be any unconstitutional violations.

References

American Civil Liberties. (2012). Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986). Retrieved July 2,

2013 from http://american-civil-liberties.com/cases/4067-lockhart-v-mccree-476-us-162

Butler, B. (2007). The Role of Death Qualification in Jurors’ Susceptibility to Pretrial Publicity.

Retrieved July 2, 2013 from

http://floridacapitalresourcecenter.org/media/public_documents/pretrial_publicity_jasp.pdf